Andrew Ruva
Sudan is a country in dire need of foreign policy support from the international community, particularly the United States. Sudan is in a constant state of crisis, and the current U.S. Foreign Policy towards Sudan is limited and possibly slightly reluctant. The overwhelming violation of humanity in Sudan has just recently by gained headlines in America, but little aid has followed. This paper addressed multiple public policy opportunities to ease the crisis in Sudan and raise peace for the victims of this country that is torn with violence. Through public policy effectiveness, equity, and efficiency the political feasibility of each policy alternative options is assessed.
Background
Sudan is the largest country in Africa with a population of 39 million it measures about one fourth the size of the America. Sudan’s population demographic is comprised of various ethnic and religious groups, and historically it has been very difficult for each ethnic group to get along. The most prevalent distinction in Sudan’s ethnic division is the predominating Arabs/Muslims of North Sudan and the non Arabs Animist/Christians in the southern region. Sudan is a country blessed with abundant natural resources including petroleum, gold, copper, zinc, mica, silver, iron ore, chromium, tungsten, and hydropower. However, due to civil unrest and corruption in the government Sudan’s resources are no being utilized towards economic development. The poor money management and resource distribution has caused Sudan to develop more slowly hindering economic, political, educational, and occupational growth.
Sudan gained independence from the British in 1956, and since that time the country has had only one democratically-elected leader. In 1989 a coup d’etat took place and overthrew the only elected democratic elected leader Sadiq Al Mahdi. The coup was architected by a national Islamic front to enforce Islamic ideology like sharia (Islamic law) in order to influence and control all regions of Sudan and the neighboring countries. All other leaders came to power through a coup d’état corruption, and mismanagement of country resources soon followed. Since Sudan’s independence in 1956 there has been only ten years of relative peace between 1972 through 1983 because of the Addis Ababa agreement in Ethiopia. This agreement was to end the first civil war; however, in 1983 war broke out again caused by south Sudan because of the introduction of Sharia law in the country. Southern Sudan felt disenfranchised and fought to seek autonomy for the south Sudan.
Problem Definition
Sudan has been in civil war for over thirty six years of its independence with nearly two million dead, four million internally displaced, and 500,000 refugees. The people of Sudan have spent these years in brutal hardship undergoing slave raiding, aerial bombing of civilians, attacks on humanitarians centers, plundering of aid supplies by both the government forces and the rebels. The government uses food as weapon and means of control to subdue the local populations, force displacement, and interfere with religious freedom. All of these unspeakable crimes against humanity are a constant battle in Sudan with multiple accounts of each heinous crime occurring almost daily.
In 2003 another war broke out in Darfur, the western part of Sudan, which continues to cause a huge out cry from the international community since little has been done to avert the human suffering. There is also a war in eastern region of the country as well that causes unspeakable violence. All of these regions with instability are fighting for equality because they feel that their region has been neglected by regime in Khartoum. Khartoum has been known to be involved in supporting international terrorism since 1990 harboring the world’s most wanted terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and Abu Nidal. The terrorist' hidden lives in Sudan provided them with training facilities. This has caused the United States to put Sudan on the list of countries sponsoring international terrorism because in August 1998 the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were carried out by an al-Qaeda operative trained in Sudan.
It was not until 2005 that hope arrived in the country when the southern rebels and Khartoum regime signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The CPA is designed to shake both sides (rebels and government) which always accuse each other of breaking the peace treaty. This is likely because the Sudanese government is known for dishonoring so many other peace treaty agreements in the past.
Policy Alternatives
Regime Changes
Regime changes occur when a forcible overthrow of another nation's government by outside intervention, especially when the targeted nation is regarded as politically unstable. A regime change has never occurred in Sudan because there is no outside authority willing to involve in other country sovereignty except the regional indigenous people within Sudan who are fighting with their own government in attempts to change the regime and end the human suffrage and exploitation. Regime changes in the past have proven unsuccessful on a mass scale. There have been minimal regime changes in Sudan since its establishment as a country. Changes have occurred through a coup d’etat, orchestrated by a few religious groups. I think that regime change could be a positive development for the country and this part of region as a whole it has to happen to alleviate the human suffering in the country because give the current situation there is no hope for just peace in Sudan if the same authority with the same ideology is still grabbing on to power. Regime change has to occur if the international community said that enough is enough to the human right abuse and suffering of the people. They would have to build a coalition force and invade Sudan then establish a coalition government that would including all the people of Sudan instead of selected few running the country.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness of stable and positive policy development would be evident through the relative peace and economic growth in Sudan and the neighboring countries. Currently countries like Uganda, Ethiopia, Chad, Congo, and Eritrea are experiencing financial deficits and halted social and economic growth because of the numerous refugees that have been forced into these nations by war. These neighboring countries can not afford to accommodate large refugee populations due to the civil unrest in the countries caused by hostile outside rebel forces who are trying to overthrow the governments in attempts to attack the refugees and those who support the refugees’ cause.
In the case of Uganda the rebels called the Lord Resistance Army who are fighting to overthrow the government. This rebel group is being provided safe haven by the Khartoum regime to create instability in Uganda because Uganda is supporting the Southern Sudan rebel. Recent incidents by the Sudanese government in the last few months occurring in Chad the Sudanese government armed the Chadian rebels and supported them with helicopter gunship marching to the capital in order plan and carry out a coup which caused a week of brutal fighting.
Implementing effective policies can also bring end to the horrific human rights abuse of the ordinary citizens since a majority of innocent civilians are consistently wounded, caught in cross fire, or detained, questioned and tortured if the government suspects them of being or becoming rebel sympathizers. Regime change can eliminate Sudan from becoming a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalists, and attempt to put an end to political opposition brought on by corrupt influential political leaders who promote terrorism and a form of control and leadership.
Efficiency
A regime change could be efficient with the support of large marginalized areas that are unsatisfied with the way the regime has caused underdevelopment of that part of the nation. Gaining alliance with these areas would provide additional support for change as well as a potential source for resources. The marginalized areas like Abyie region which is hotly contested by both the government and the newly form Southern Sudan authority because in Abyie the Dinka Ngok residing there lay claim to the area but they are siding with the south and during the dry season the Messeriya Arabs a nomads from the north often migrated to this region to bring their livestock to good grazing ground and water. They are also laying claim to this area too but favoring the northern authority. The Nuba Mountain is also another hot area because during the war it people were brutal abuse by government forces because they resist submitting to the regime ideology of islamization. Also Blue Nile region is one of these areas it underdeveloped and people are neglect by the regime. Also not to mention Darfur and Southern Sudan who are bitter enemy with the regime so all this marginalized region would support regime change with out any doubts.
Equity
Equity with in the regime change can be seen through the equality and freedoms of the people when there is no more suffrage caused by government and religious suppression. This could benefit all citizens regardless of what side they were on because there would be justified order. If the leadership of the nations is ruled by elected individuals it could be a new beginning for the whole country to clean up the old system and build better Sudan for all where human rights, freedom, democracy are safe guarded.
Political feasibility
Regime change is gaining political feasibility because countries around the world have gained awareness about the Darfur crisis and the killing of innocent civilians. In 1994 when the Rwanda genocide occurred the world stood by and watched the crime unfold before our eyes. The world view towards Africa and the refugees has changed from viewing those griming pictures of the 1994 genocide, and ordinary people and Untied Nations vowed to never let such a terrible crime happen again. Unfortunately, the politicians in Washington fear that invading another foreign nation would not be a good idea because of the current situation in Iraq. The United States has chosen to focus on domestic policies instead because of the over cost of the Iraq war. However, a shift in thinking could solicit the regime change as feasible because it could be seen as a part of the war on terrorism. If Sudan is seen as the sponsor of the most wanted terrorist, invading this country to bring democracy could help U.S. terrorism opposers and bring stability to the nation. The most important element in the plight for political feasibility for a rigme change in Sudan is because it would bring forward the preservation of basic human rights. Restoring the dignity and respect of a nation is the roots of upward economic and social development. This would allow Sudan to make a significant contribution to the rest of the world in the form of a concrete government and economic enterprises which would allow other nations to engage in trade with Sudan.
Sanctions
Sanctions are a coercive measure used by a nation or group of nations against another as a penalty for violating international law or international norms. In October 1997 the United States imposed comprehensive economic, trade, and financial sanctions. In 2004 the United Nation Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the Sudanese authority individual groups like the Janjaweed militia, but the regime figured how to out smart the sanction. In 2005 another sanction was imposed, but time it allowed a traveling ban on the Sudanese officials and assets freezing. The United States was primarily responsible for sponsoring most of these sanctions, and other western nations soon followed. However, on the international scale two powerful nations, China and Russia, side with the Khartoum regime by protecting it from server sanction. China and Russia threaten to use their veto at the Security Council which would create greater economic hardship. Additionally, the Chinese and the Russians are involved in selling weapons to Sudan despite sanction imposture efforts.
Effectiveness
Sanctions could be a positive solution because it will stop shipments of weapons, illegal trading, and violations of international trade embargos. The financial resources coming in from outside countries like Russia and China boost the Khartoum economy, but sanctions that come with harsh penalties for violating the mandates would weaken the regime. The regime would be isolated and would have difficulty importing weapons. Sanctions would crack down on violence and cause financial insecurity so that the terrorism could not be funded so easily.
Efficiency
In order to have sanctions be a vastly efficient aspect in foreign trade policies the Chinese and Russian governments would also need to remain in compliance with the international community. To enforce the sanctions the international community would need to implement concrete policies for trade and the violators of such agreements. Additionally, it would be likely that there would have to be some sort of incentive to sway the Chinese and Russian governments to fully comply with the international community.
Equity
Equity can be produced from these sanctions in a financial perspective. All major industrialist countries have companies that are doing business with the regime. Punishing these companies through fines would cut off the strong financial ties with the regime and make it more difficult to sell and trade destructive weapons. Also, the monies occurred from the fines of the sanction violators could go towards humanitarian relief funds.
Political feasibility
Sanction is not politically feasible because a lot of countries specially the Chinese and Russia are deeply involve in Sudanese affair to certain extend they are the party to the conflict it self because they are selling arm to Sudan fueling the genocide plus China is big partner in Sudan oil exploration sanction would not be welcome by them and even if it is pass enforcing it could be hectic. Also for instance the United States imports a bout 5000 tones of Gum Arabs from Sudan annually. Gum Arabs is used in many common manufactured goods which act as an emulsifier, flavoring agent, and thickener in both food and pharmaceuticals. Gum Arabic is also used in the newspaper and magazine printing process, allowing ink to better stick to the paper while keeping it from smearing, as well as protecting the printing plates from oxidation. There are many other countries like Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Mexico but Sudan gum Arabic has the highest quality in the market. United states Companies that rely heavily on gum Arabic import have lobbied to exclude gum Arabic from the sanction. These companies were able to applied for licenses to import gum Arabic, which may made the sanction on Sudan invalided.
Peace Agreement
A peace agreement occurs between two hostile groups, country, or government, to end war or civil fighting. The Sudanese government is known for dishonoring many peace agreements. The 1972 Addis Ababa peace agreement failed when it was not fully implemented was then overthrown in 1983, and from that point on the new government did not recognize that peace agreement. The 1996 Khartoum peace agreement was dishonored by the regime and in 1999 the Egypt and Libya peace initiative was launched trying to diffuse the conflict and bring the warring parties to negotiation table. The 1996 peace initiative was also later dishonored because there were no international observers involved at the signing.
Effectiveness
Creating peace agreements could be effective if the government and rebel forces respected each other enough to honor it. Unfortunately, given the past character of the regime it is very difficult to assume that the peace treaty could be honored. To ensure adequate effectiveness there would need to be a system of checks and balances to ensure that the peace agreements were being continuously and properly implemented.
Efficiency
The international community could ensure efficiently of the peace agreement by closely following the interactions of the nations that created the treaty. Increased involvement and pressure from the international community could persuade the warring countries to honor the peace agreement.
Equity
Equity in the peace agreements would be acquired for all citizens of both warring countries. The people of each nation would not need to live in fear of hostile fire and in terror brought on by the war.
Political feasibility
Peace agreements are politically feasible because the treaties do not require significant amounts of energy and resources. Peace agreements are less expensive than the cost of warfare, and the subsequent effects of cleaning up after war. If the peace agreement is achieved it could bring stability to all of Sudan. The (LRA) Lord Resistance Army of Uganda who has been in hide out in southern Sudan would be force to rethink their cause for war.
Peace keeping force
A peace keeping force is a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. The regime in Khartoum has always rejected proposal for any peace keeping force to be sent to the war torn region of Darfur, or any other part of Sudan. To enforce this notion in 2005 after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the southern rebels the United Nation unanimously adopted a resolution for 10,000 troops to Sudan to monitor the peace accord in the southern part of the country. The Khartoum regime is taking a devastating approach in the Darfur situation. The government initially opposed peace keeping forces in Darfur, but under pressure from the international community, 26,000 hybrid peace keeping forces have been deployed to Darfur. These forces are under equipped because they rely solely on equipment donated to them from developed countries. Additionally, the government interferes with their jobs making it difficult to do much of anything. The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution 1769 to give the peace keeping more power. Resolution 1769 stated that the force is to be under the United Nation because prior to that they were under the African Peace keeping force.
Effectiveness
Peace keeping forces would be effective if it would enforce peace agreements, promote positive alliances, and end human suffrage and ruthless killings of innocent civilians. However, implementation of properly trained and adequate peace keeping forces could raise concerns for total economic effectiveness and would require support and substantial sponsorship from the international councils and communities.
Efficiency
Peace Keeping Forces when adequately trained and equipped would be an efficient entity, but there would need to be initial improvements that would prevent Sudanese government officials from interfering with the work of the peace keeping forces.
Equity
Peace keeping force would operate as an outside mediating force to ensure laws are followed that would provide resolutions to the conflicts.
Political feasibility
Ending the devastating crisis would in turn give the peace keeping forces project politically feasibility. It would create unity of the international community and it would help develop stronger alliances and better reputations. Cooperating to solve problems in Sudan could also lead to bigger global involvement in other impoverished countries as well.
Conclusion
In consideration of the regime change, sanctions, peace agreements, and peace keeping forces my analysis concludes that no above option is superior in actual correction of this chaos would likely come from innovative new plans and a collaboration of all options presented in this essay.
Sanctions have historically been ineffective because of Chinese and Russian undermining. The peace agreement option is attainable, but a much too slow process for both parties to come together in negotiation. Additionally, implementing the peace agreements has been proven difficult in the past, particularly with so many disregarded agreements. It would be difficult to enforce peace initiatives at this point when there have never been consequences to the regime for violating them in the past. Creating and implementing peace keeping forces does not look pleasing to would require significant international planning, cooperation, support, and financial contributions to complete this plan. Regime change is likely the best source of corrective action to be attributed from this essay. The Khartoum regime has major ties and operations all thought Sudan as well as cooperative international forces. Their power is vast and strong and it would take massive change and action to unravel the chaos and destruction the Khartoum regime has ravished across Sudan. Since regime change is a great endeavor that would also require monumental international backing other solutions should be initiated before the regime change. This would bring a sense of change to the people while simultaneously raising global awareness and support for the cause. It is important to bring political stability to Sudan and the countries boarding it that have also been involved in the catastrophic events of the Khartoum regime. Implementing such a regime change would provide a means for a coalition government that could bring peace back to the nations.
Reference:
Walter, Kansteiner. “US policy toward Sudan.” US States of Department 5 June. 2002
George, Moose. “US policy towards Sudan.” US States of Department 15 may 1997
United States Institute of Peace. Comprehensive Peace Agreement
Machakos Protocol 20 June 2002
US Department of States. US Sanction on Sudan Washington: 23 April 2008
United Nation. Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1591 (2005) concerning the Sudan 29 march 2005
US Sanctions on Sudan and the Gum Arabic Exemption
Background
Sudan is the largest country in Africa with a population of 39 million it measures about one fourth the size of the America. Sudan’s population demographic is comprised of various ethnic and religious groups, and historically it has been very difficult for each ethnic group to get along. The most prevalent distinction in Sudan’s ethnic division is the predominating Arabs/Muslims of North Sudan and the non Arabs Animist/Christians in the southern region. Sudan is a country blessed with abundant natural resources including petroleum, gold, copper, zinc, mica, silver, iron ore, chromium, tungsten, and hydropower. However, due to civil unrest and corruption in the government Sudan’s resources are no being utilized towards economic development. The poor money management and resource distribution has caused Sudan to develop more slowly hindering economic, political, educational, and occupational growth.
Sudan gained independence from the British in 1956, and since that time the country has had only one democratically-elected leader. In 1989 a coup d’etat took place and overthrew the only elected democratic elected leader Sadiq Al Mahdi. The coup was architected by a national Islamic front to enforce Islamic ideology like sharia (Islamic law) in order to influence and control all regions of Sudan and the neighboring countries. All other leaders came to power through a coup d’état corruption, and mismanagement of country resources soon followed. Since Sudan’s independence in 1956 there has been only ten years of relative peace between 1972 through 1983 because of the Addis Ababa agreement in Ethiopia. This agreement was to end the first civil war; however, in 1983 war broke out again caused by south Sudan because of the introduction of Sharia law in the country. Southern Sudan felt disenfranchised and fought to seek autonomy for the south Sudan.
Problem Definition
Sudan has been in civil war for over thirty six years of its independence with nearly two million dead, four million internally displaced, and 500,000 refugees. The people of Sudan have spent these years in brutal hardship undergoing slave raiding, aerial bombing of civilians, attacks on humanitarians centers, plundering of aid supplies by both the government forces and the rebels. The government uses food as weapon and means of control to subdue the local populations, force displacement, and interfere with religious freedom. All of these unspeakable crimes against humanity are a constant battle in Sudan with multiple accounts of each heinous crime occurring almost daily.
In 2003 another war broke out in Darfur, the western part of Sudan, which continues to cause a huge out cry from the international community since little has been done to avert the human suffering. There is also a war in eastern region of the country as well that causes unspeakable violence. All of these regions with instability are fighting for equality because they feel that their region has been neglected by regime in Khartoum. Khartoum has been known to be involved in supporting international terrorism since 1990 harboring the world’s most wanted terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and Abu Nidal. The terrorist' hidden lives in Sudan provided them with training facilities. This has caused the United States to put Sudan on the list of countries sponsoring international terrorism because in August 1998 the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were carried out by an al-Qaeda operative trained in Sudan.
It was not until 2005 that hope arrived in the country when the southern rebels and Khartoum regime signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The CPA is designed to shake both sides (rebels and government) which always accuse each other of breaking the peace treaty. This is likely because the Sudanese government is known for dishonoring so many other peace treaty agreements in the past.
Policy Alternatives
Regime Changes
Regime changes occur when a forcible overthrow of another nation's government by outside intervention, especially when the targeted nation is regarded as politically unstable. A regime change has never occurred in Sudan because there is no outside authority willing to involve in other country sovereignty except the regional indigenous people within Sudan who are fighting with their own government in attempts to change the regime and end the human suffrage and exploitation. Regime changes in the past have proven unsuccessful on a mass scale. There have been minimal regime changes in Sudan since its establishment as a country. Changes have occurred through a coup d’etat, orchestrated by a few religious groups. I think that regime change could be a positive development for the country and this part of region as a whole it has to happen to alleviate the human suffering in the country because give the current situation there is no hope for just peace in Sudan if the same authority with the same ideology is still grabbing on to power. Regime change has to occur if the international community said that enough is enough to the human right abuse and suffering of the people. They would have to build a coalition force and invade Sudan then establish a coalition government that would including all the people of Sudan instead of selected few running the country.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness of stable and positive policy development would be evident through the relative peace and economic growth in Sudan and the neighboring countries. Currently countries like Uganda, Ethiopia, Chad, Congo, and Eritrea are experiencing financial deficits and halted social and economic growth because of the numerous refugees that have been forced into these nations by war. These neighboring countries can not afford to accommodate large refugee populations due to the civil unrest in the countries caused by hostile outside rebel forces who are trying to overthrow the governments in attempts to attack the refugees and those who support the refugees’ cause.
In the case of Uganda the rebels called the Lord Resistance Army who are fighting to overthrow the government. This rebel group is being provided safe haven by the Khartoum regime to create instability in Uganda because Uganda is supporting the Southern Sudan rebel. Recent incidents by the Sudanese government in the last few months occurring in Chad the Sudanese government armed the Chadian rebels and supported them with helicopter gunship marching to the capital in order plan and carry out a coup which caused a week of brutal fighting.
Implementing effective policies can also bring end to the horrific human rights abuse of the ordinary citizens since a majority of innocent civilians are consistently wounded, caught in cross fire, or detained, questioned and tortured if the government suspects them of being or becoming rebel sympathizers. Regime change can eliminate Sudan from becoming a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalists, and attempt to put an end to political opposition brought on by corrupt influential political leaders who promote terrorism and a form of control and leadership.
Efficiency
A regime change could be efficient with the support of large marginalized areas that are unsatisfied with the way the regime has caused underdevelopment of that part of the nation. Gaining alliance with these areas would provide additional support for change as well as a potential source for resources. The marginalized areas like Abyie region which is hotly contested by both the government and the newly form Southern Sudan authority because in Abyie the Dinka Ngok residing there lay claim to the area but they are siding with the south and during the dry season the Messeriya Arabs a nomads from the north often migrated to this region to bring their livestock to good grazing ground and water. They are also laying claim to this area too but favoring the northern authority. The Nuba Mountain is also another hot area because during the war it people were brutal abuse by government forces because they resist submitting to the regime ideology of islamization. Also Blue Nile region is one of these areas it underdeveloped and people are neglect by the regime. Also not to mention Darfur and Southern Sudan who are bitter enemy with the regime so all this marginalized region would support regime change with out any doubts.
Equity
Equity with in the regime change can be seen through the equality and freedoms of the people when there is no more suffrage caused by government and religious suppression. This could benefit all citizens regardless of what side they were on because there would be justified order. If the leadership of the nations is ruled by elected individuals it could be a new beginning for the whole country to clean up the old system and build better Sudan for all where human rights, freedom, democracy are safe guarded.
Political feasibility
Regime change is gaining political feasibility because countries around the world have gained awareness about the Darfur crisis and the killing of innocent civilians. In 1994 when the Rwanda genocide occurred the world stood by and watched the crime unfold before our eyes. The world view towards Africa and the refugees has changed from viewing those griming pictures of the 1994 genocide, and ordinary people and Untied Nations vowed to never let such a terrible crime happen again. Unfortunately, the politicians in Washington fear that invading another foreign nation would not be a good idea because of the current situation in Iraq. The United States has chosen to focus on domestic policies instead because of the over cost of the Iraq war. However, a shift in thinking could solicit the regime change as feasible because it could be seen as a part of the war on terrorism. If Sudan is seen as the sponsor of the most wanted terrorist, invading this country to bring democracy could help U.S. terrorism opposers and bring stability to the nation. The most important element in the plight for political feasibility for a rigme change in Sudan is because it would bring forward the preservation of basic human rights. Restoring the dignity and respect of a nation is the roots of upward economic and social development. This would allow Sudan to make a significant contribution to the rest of the world in the form of a concrete government and economic enterprises which would allow other nations to engage in trade with Sudan.
Sanctions
Sanctions are a coercive measure used by a nation or group of nations against another as a penalty for violating international law or international norms. In October 1997 the United States imposed comprehensive economic, trade, and financial sanctions. In 2004 the United Nation Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the Sudanese authority individual groups like the Janjaweed militia, but the regime figured how to out smart the sanction. In 2005 another sanction was imposed, but time it allowed a traveling ban on the Sudanese officials and assets freezing. The United States was primarily responsible for sponsoring most of these sanctions, and other western nations soon followed. However, on the international scale two powerful nations, China and Russia, side with the Khartoum regime by protecting it from server sanction. China and Russia threaten to use their veto at the Security Council which would create greater economic hardship. Additionally, the Chinese and the Russians are involved in selling weapons to Sudan despite sanction imposture efforts.
Effectiveness
Sanctions could be a positive solution because it will stop shipments of weapons, illegal trading, and violations of international trade embargos. The financial resources coming in from outside countries like Russia and China boost the Khartoum economy, but sanctions that come with harsh penalties for violating the mandates would weaken the regime. The regime would be isolated and would have difficulty importing weapons. Sanctions would crack down on violence and cause financial insecurity so that the terrorism could not be funded so easily.
Efficiency
In order to have sanctions be a vastly efficient aspect in foreign trade policies the Chinese and Russian governments would also need to remain in compliance with the international community. To enforce the sanctions the international community would need to implement concrete policies for trade and the violators of such agreements. Additionally, it would be likely that there would have to be some sort of incentive to sway the Chinese and Russian governments to fully comply with the international community.
Equity
Equity can be produced from these sanctions in a financial perspective. All major industrialist countries have companies that are doing business with the regime. Punishing these companies through fines would cut off the strong financial ties with the regime and make it more difficult to sell and trade destructive weapons. Also, the monies occurred from the fines of the sanction violators could go towards humanitarian relief funds.
Political feasibility
Sanction is not politically feasible because a lot of countries specially the Chinese and Russia are deeply involve in Sudanese affair to certain extend they are the party to the conflict it self because they are selling arm to Sudan fueling the genocide plus China is big partner in Sudan oil exploration sanction would not be welcome by them and even if it is pass enforcing it could be hectic. Also for instance the United States imports a bout 5000 tones of Gum Arabs from Sudan annually. Gum Arabs is used in many common manufactured goods which act as an emulsifier, flavoring agent, and thickener in both food and pharmaceuticals. Gum Arabic is also used in the newspaper and magazine printing process, allowing ink to better stick to the paper while keeping it from smearing, as well as protecting the printing plates from oxidation. There are many other countries like Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Mexico but Sudan gum Arabic has the highest quality in the market. United states Companies that rely heavily on gum Arabic import have lobbied to exclude gum Arabic from the sanction. These companies were able to applied for licenses to import gum Arabic, which may made the sanction on Sudan invalided.
Peace Agreement
A peace agreement occurs between two hostile groups, country, or government, to end war or civil fighting. The Sudanese government is known for dishonoring many peace agreements. The 1972 Addis Ababa peace agreement failed when it was not fully implemented was then overthrown in 1983, and from that point on the new government did not recognize that peace agreement. The 1996 Khartoum peace agreement was dishonored by the regime and in 1999 the Egypt and Libya peace initiative was launched trying to diffuse the conflict and bring the warring parties to negotiation table. The 1996 peace initiative was also later dishonored because there were no international observers involved at the signing.
Effectiveness
Creating peace agreements could be effective if the government and rebel forces respected each other enough to honor it. Unfortunately, given the past character of the regime it is very difficult to assume that the peace treaty could be honored. To ensure adequate effectiveness there would need to be a system of checks and balances to ensure that the peace agreements were being continuously and properly implemented.
Efficiency
The international community could ensure efficiently of the peace agreement by closely following the interactions of the nations that created the treaty. Increased involvement and pressure from the international community could persuade the warring countries to honor the peace agreement.
Equity
Equity in the peace agreements would be acquired for all citizens of both warring countries. The people of each nation would not need to live in fear of hostile fire and in terror brought on by the war.
Political feasibility
Peace agreements are politically feasible because the treaties do not require significant amounts of energy and resources. Peace agreements are less expensive than the cost of warfare, and the subsequent effects of cleaning up after war. If the peace agreement is achieved it could bring stability to all of Sudan. The (LRA) Lord Resistance Army of Uganda who has been in hide out in southern Sudan would be force to rethink their cause for war.
Peace keeping force
A peace keeping force is a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. The regime in Khartoum has always rejected proposal for any peace keeping force to be sent to the war torn region of Darfur, or any other part of Sudan. To enforce this notion in 2005 after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the southern rebels the United Nation unanimously adopted a resolution for 10,000 troops to Sudan to monitor the peace accord in the southern part of the country. The Khartoum regime is taking a devastating approach in the Darfur situation. The government initially opposed peace keeping forces in Darfur, but under pressure from the international community, 26,000 hybrid peace keeping forces have been deployed to Darfur. These forces are under equipped because they rely solely on equipment donated to them from developed countries. Additionally, the government interferes with their jobs making it difficult to do much of anything. The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution 1769 to give the peace keeping more power. Resolution 1769 stated that the force is to be under the United Nation because prior to that they were under the African Peace keeping force.
Effectiveness
Peace keeping forces would be effective if it would enforce peace agreements, promote positive alliances, and end human suffrage and ruthless killings of innocent civilians. However, implementation of properly trained and adequate peace keeping forces could raise concerns for total economic effectiveness and would require support and substantial sponsorship from the international councils and communities.
Efficiency
Peace Keeping Forces when adequately trained and equipped would be an efficient entity, but there would need to be initial improvements that would prevent Sudanese government officials from interfering with the work of the peace keeping forces.
Equity
Peace keeping force would operate as an outside mediating force to ensure laws are followed that would provide resolutions to the conflicts.
Political feasibility
Ending the devastating crisis would in turn give the peace keeping forces project politically feasibility. It would create unity of the international community and it would help develop stronger alliances and better reputations. Cooperating to solve problems in Sudan could also lead to bigger global involvement in other impoverished countries as well.
Conclusion
In consideration of the regime change, sanctions, peace agreements, and peace keeping forces my analysis concludes that no above option is superior in actual correction of this chaos would likely come from innovative new plans and a collaboration of all options presented in this essay.
Sanctions have historically been ineffective because of Chinese and Russian undermining. The peace agreement option is attainable, but a much too slow process for both parties to come together in negotiation. Additionally, implementing the peace agreements has been proven difficult in the past, particularly with so many disregarded agreements. It would be difficult to enforce peace initiatives at this point when there have never been consequences to the regime for violating them in the past. Creating and implementing peace keeping forces does not look pleasing to would require significant international planning, cooperation, support, and financial contributions to complete this plan. Regime change is likely the best source of corrective action to be attributed from this essay. The Khartoum regime has major ties and operations all thought Sudan as well as cooperative international forces. Their power is vast and strong and it would take massive change and action to unravel the chaos and destruction the Khartoum regime has ravished across Sudan. Since regime change is a great endeavor that would also require monumental international backing other solutions should be initiated before the regime change. This would bring a sense of change to the people while simultaneously raising global awareness and support for the cause. It is important to bring political stability to Sudan and the countries boarding it that have also been involved in the catastrophic events of the Khartoum regime. Implementing such a regime change would provide a means for a coalition government that could bring peace back to the nations.
Reference:
Walter, Kansteiner. “US policy toward Sudan.” US States of Department 5 June. 2002
George, Moose. “US policy towards Sudan.” US States of Department 15 may 1997
United States Institute of Peace. Comprehensive Peace Agreement
Machakos Protocol 20 June 2002
US Department of States. US Sanction on Sudan Washington: 23 April 2008
United Nation. Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1591 (2005) concerning the Sudan 29 march 2005
US Sanctions on Sudan and the Gum Arabic Exemption
