George Clooney is flanked by then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a news conference on Darfur in 2006. (AP)
The largest conventional war on the face of the earth in 2011 will occur in Sudan unless bold diplomacy led by the U.S. prevents it. The most dangerous tripwire will be in seven months, when southern Sudanese will vote to determine whether the South splits off and forms a new country. Some ruling party officials don't want to give up the oil-rich South without a fight. Southerners spilled a great deal of blood to win the right to opt out of Sudan, and they will keep fighting until they have their own state.
The last North/South war that ended in 2005 cost more than 2 million lives, and the Darfur conflict in Sudan's West has claimed over 300,000 more. Massive death tolls are the result of war tactics -- principally by the government -- that target civilians. Communities throughout Sudan have fought an authoritarian government to share in the country's power and wealth.
The good news is that this path to all-out war is unfolding in slow motion, and there is time to prevent it. The U.S. has a history of leading international efforts in Sudan, including helping to broker the 2005 peace deal. But the Obama administration has not taken a direct, leading role in the negotiations to avert renewed war in the South or to end the Darfur conflict. Furthermore, some U.S. officials believe that the United States has no leverage in Sudan.
Because of international sentiment that opposes sanctions and other forms of pressure, the U.S. shies away from creating any real consequences for Sudan's war crimes. And because activists and Congress strongly favor imposing such consequences, U.S. officials avoid serious discussion of peace incentives. We know; we've been a couple of those activists.
This op-ed co-authored with actor George Clooney originally appeared in USA Today. Click here to continue reading.
George Clooney is an actor and co-founder of Not On Our Watch. John Prendergast is co-founder of the Enough Project and co-author with Don Cheadle of the forthcoming book The Enough Moment.
Follow John Prendergast on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JP4Enough
At the same time, America has tried to corral Bashir to comply with American naitnoal security interests, such as Bush's War on Terror of which Bashir gladly joined.
This is the hypocricy- America welcomes into its ranks of regimes a dictator like Bashir (like Saddam) and then work to destroy his country through arming rebel groups (like in Iraq) all while claiming to want peace. SPLA got training and supplies from Israel, Kenya as well as Uganda (all US proxies) as well as from America directly. Meanwhile, Darfur rebels have been armed, trained, supplied by Tchad presidential guard who have been trained by the US Spec Ops out of Djibouti.
Thus, by deciding who gets arms and supplies in another country, you become responsible and accountable for what happens in that country. If Al Qaeda funds military attacks in America, its called terrorism and grounds for war. But when America does the same thing in a country, in particular a Muslim country ( like Iraq pre PGWI, like Iran since 2005 per reports), its acceptable?
By using multiple directions to destabilize and weaken a nation, including arms to rebels, America has taken on moral responsibilitiy for what transpires in that country.
But you can't draw connections like that. Chad initially received training and supplies from the French because they were constantly being invaded by Libya and their massive military (thousands of tanks, hundreds of planes. Now they are being attacked by Bashir's proxies and in one instant was just hours away from being overthrown when gunfire reached just outside the presidential Palace.
Ever since Chad retaliated with its own proxy group (JEM), Bashir halted his support to groups trying to take over Chad.
Although they aren't as much of proxies as these groups had initial interests.
And if you have forgotten this was the guy who gave Osama sanctuary in the 1990's. US has never been particularly warm to Bashir, we have only had to deal with him as an alternative to something that would be nasty.
ALL YOU LIBERALS YELL ABOUT HOW WE MUST UTILIZE THE UN AND NOT THROW AROUND OUR WEIGHT..... I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THAT.. SO LETS DO THAT INSTEAD OF GETTING US INVOLVED IN EVERYT CONFLICDT AROUND THE WORLD..
isn't this the same policy that liberals say lead to everyone HATING US???
You'd been to get use to the feeling of impotence too. Our nation's power in the world is rapidly diminishing. I suspect when the world recovers from the U.S.-created 'great recession' they're going to come back trading and negotiating with eachother instead of dealing through us.
There are places we have limited influence but that is almost entirely rogue (Iran, North Korea, etc) or competitive (Russia, China, etc) states. But then again we never really had strong influence in those places to begin with.
Demonize the Sudanese government?? Since when is denunciation of genocide considered demonizing?? This is the same government who repeatedly has tried to destabilize the South, killed hundreds of thousands, displaced even more.
BTW, there isn't an oil company in the US that wants to pick up the oil wells in Sudan. What uneducated people like you don't understand is that oil companies in the US don't take risks. We don't build oil wells in places of conflict, this is why China won the Iraqi contracts.
Go back to your conspiracy theories.
Naturally diplomacy is the cheapest and safest way in which to solve a problem but rarely do words alone solve problems.
GOS (the government of Sudan) will try to undermine independence in several ways: rig the election, cause division and chaos among the Southern tribes, and if all that fails then war. At the very least they will try to seize the oil fields via force or negotiations if the South becomes independent.
Believe it or not the US has been very active (with the exception of Grattion) in trying to undermine Bashir. The US has been extremely active in Darfur and Southern Sudan but has been very quiet in its activities as not to provoke Bashir and the Muslim world/Middle East (we don't need to give other leaders a reason to back a monster).
One of the bigger activities is the supplying of arms to Southern Sudan. This will hopefully provide a deterrent in which to keep the North from triggering war. Keep in mind almost all wars are started on the assumption that the other power is weaker and can be defeated. While war is the worst of all scenarios (except genocide), a defenseless Southern Sudan will most certainly never gain its independence. Bashir has gotten away with genocide, moving tanks around in his own country pales in comparison.
Its unfathomable for a foreign power to foment division between peoples of the same nation, unless that foreign nation is a Western power with its own imperial agenda. It is this hypocricy that nonMuslim minorities are granted military power to secede from Muslim countries, while Muslim minorities in majority nonMuslim countries are suppressed, often with no discretion, with all force necessary (Chechnya, India's Kashmir, Bosnia, Mindinao, South Thailand, Turkestan/Xinjiang, north Nigeria, Ogaden Ethiopia).
Since Sudan's independence from Britain, southern Sudanese have been armed to wage war with the north when the Khartoum government was secular and socialist. What remained is America has wanted southern Sudan to secede from Khartoum for decades. America has armed and supplied the south for war. Rich US investors have been buying up of land in the south in anticipation of secession. Not to mention that the long time leader of the south's SPLA, Garang, the one who negotiated today's peace, was killed mysteriously in a plane crash after saying he was against secession.
Why this hypocricy, this push for secession for a landlocked province? To control the Nile waters so as to have better control over Egypt and Sudan? For southern Sudanese oil reserves now controlled by China? Why foment war for generations?
Never mind the cold war which pitted East against West along with their proxies, Khartoum has treated the South like a red headed step-child.
Bashir runs a chauvinist, racist regime who wants not only a Muslim but an Arabic hegemony. He is responsible for the hundreds of thousands dead and displaced in Darfur so he can chase out sub-Saharan Africans (who are also Muslim) in order to make room for the Arab majority.
Garang wanted a cease-fire and a referendum which will happen next year. If anything he was the West's point man.
And speaking of fomenting war, how about all those tribal conflicts that keep breaking out in the South, I wouldn't suppose Bashir would have anything to do with that, considering it has been his trademark in conflict making for years.
So Bashir has played the Game of Nations. He's worked with America, but he's not America's boy. But guess what- its suspected of Bashir that he's willing to let the south secede in exchange for America letting him stay in power.
You think because you are 'liberal' you know what's right? America has protected the Egyptian Pharoah for decades. And Egypt brought Bashir into power over Turabi.
You think that because you don't understand America's angles in faraway places like central Africa then America is innocent? American special forces trained rebel groups and have been engaging in black ops throughout much of Africa. American forces have been connected to rebel Congolese forces trained in Uganda who have been involved in massacres. America is indeed involved in Sudan. America has been connected with the Darfur conflict too. The thing is, America wants to tear about Sudan to get better access to its resources which are controlled by China. And Bashir is making it possible. Darn right I blame America. Bashir is a typical bloodthirsty, selfish, despicable Muslim ruler who plays the Game just enough so America keeps him in power.
But the American people just don't care. You bring up Sudan or Darfur and they say "Oh, wasn't that from a few years ago?"