Easing Sudan’s sanctions: Lifeline for Bashir or catalyst for change?
Posted on January 16, 2017 by Simona Foltyn
What’s behind Obama’s 11th-hour decision to lift sanctions on one of
the world’s most isolated regimes?
Credit: OFID/F. Albassam.
Ordinary Sudanese citizens have borne the brunt of the trade embargo.
Credit: OFID/F. Albassam.
In one of his final acts in office, US President Barack Obama
announced last Friday the partial lifting of sanctions against Sudan,
paving the way for normalisation of ties with one of the most isolated
countries in the world.
Obama’s decision has drawn sharp criticism from within the US, the
only country in the world that officially labelled mass killings in
Darfur as genocide. Human rights organisations and long-time
anti-Khartoum activists rushed to condemn the decree, calling it
“inexplicable,” “premature” and “a deal with the devil”. Some argued
that Obama had forfeited America’s biggest bargaining chip over
President Omar al-Bashir, while others vowed to “work with the U.S.
Congress to see some of these sanctions restored”.
The view from Sudan, however, appears markedly different. In dozens of
conversations with the author over the past months, Sudanese from all
walks of life and from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly
described the sanctions as unjust and counterproductive.
Even the fiercest political opponents of Bashir voiced support for
sanctions relief, not because they doubted their government’s guilt in
perpetrating human rights abuses, but because the sanctions have done
little to bring about change on the ground.
Despite there being sanctions in place for the majority of his rule,
Bashir remains in power after 27 years, with no signs of political
opening. The sanctions didn’t limit the elite’s ability to amass
wealth, nor to get their hands on weapons. Moreover, average citizens
bore the brunt of the trade embargo.
This view, grounded in practical rather than moral considerations, is
one that seems to have prevailed in the final year of the Obama
administration. However, the importance of geopolitical factors in the
recent decision cannot be understated. Sudan is seen as a stabilising
force in an increasingly volatile neighbourhood that includes a failed
state in Libya, unrest in Ethiopia and the looming threat of genocide
in South Sudan. Sudan is also working with the West to tackle
irregular migration and terrorism in the region.
Obama’s 11th-hour decision may also reflect a realisation that a more
constructive approach was needed to move forward, that Khartoum needed
less stick and more carrot. The easing of sanctions is not so much a
reward for steps taken by the government, but more of a goodwill
gesture intended to catalyse future change.
What has been lifted, what remains?
Obama’s partial easing of sanctions was the product of a discreet,
bilateral deal struck in June last year. Khartoum declared a
unilateral cessation of hostilities in the South Kordofan and Blue
Nile states on the border with South Sudan, promised to allow
humanitarian access and at least officially withdrew support to South
Sudan’s rebels. The US also claims that the government has halted
aerial bombardments in Darfur and the two border states.
In return, Obama revoked the trade embargo imposed in 1997 for Sudan’s
perceived support for terrorist organisations, unfroze assets of
Sudanese government officials, and waived laws that prohibit US
foreign assistance to Sudan and that block the country’s access to
financing through Institutional Financial Institutions.
The order is effective 12 July 2017, with key provisions subject to
confirmation by the incoming Trump administration. But a general
license authorising all trade with Sudan introduced by the Treasury at
the same time provides immediate sanction relief.
Some sanctions remain intact, however, including those imposed in 2006
against a handful of individuals thought to be responsible for human
rights violations in Darfur. Sudan also retains its spot on the list
of state sponsors of terrorists, a designation that even the US agrees
is baseless today, but that can only be lifted with congressional
approval.
So what impact is Obama’s executive order likely to have? Will it help
bring in Sudan from the cold, or will it reinforce the regime’s bad
behaviours?
A much needed boost for the economy
Sudan’s economy, which has been hit particularly hard by the loss of
oil revenues to South Sudan and the global decline in global oil
prices, could get a much needed respite from the easing of US
sanctions.
The lifting of the embargo could attract investment, jumpstart private
sector development, and stabilise the weakening Sudanese Pound. Other
countries that had chosen to stay away to protect their US business
interests are also likely to resume trade. The ability to trade openly
with the West should increase competition, reduce the monopoly of the
state over the economy, and drive down prices of consumer goods by
cutting out intermediaries who have benefited from the sanctions by
unofficially trading in foreign goods while charging hefty margins.
Ordinary Sudanese, who are least equipped to absorb the financial
impact of the sanctions or find loopholes, would stand to gain most.
The stabilisation of the economy could further stop the exodus of the
educated middle class, arguably an important driving force for
democratisation. The prospect of economic growth and global
integration might also give disenfranchised youth hope, and weaken the
appeal of armed rebel groups and international terrorist organisations
that have recruited in Sudan in the past.
On the regional level, the easing of financial sanctions would also
lead to Sudan’s re-integration into the formal financial system,
bolstering US efforts to monitor terrorist financing and money
laundering.
Prospects for political change: a double-edged sword
While Khartoum seems to have taken some steps towards the
de-escalation of conflicts as part of its deal with Washington, it
hasn’t allowed for meaningful political opening. A recently concluded
national dialogue was widely seen as window dressing, with major
opposition parties boycotting the process. Furthermore, in the months
leading up to Obama’s announcement, security forces rounded up dozens
of opposition members and confiscated editions of several independent
newspapers. Just three days after Obama lifted sanctions, security
forces reportedly prevented members of the opposition from travelling
to Paris.
Sanctions relief in this political climate could be a double-edged sword.
On one hand, Obama’s move may give some breathing space to a ruling
party at a time that it’s feeling the pinch from a burgeoning civil
dissent movement. By boosting the ailing economy, often regarded as
the regime’s Achilles heel, the easing of the trade embargo could take
the wind out of the sails of activists who have been calling for
reform.
[Sudan protests: Why it’s in the government’s interests to respond
with restraint]
But, on the other hand, it could also empower civil society
organisations by opening up previously blocked opportunities for
education, travel and access to technological tools – things that
remained elusive despite recently granted licenses.
Finally, there’s the question of regime change. It’s arguable whether
this was ever the goal of US sanctions. But in the wake of the Arab
spring and with ISIS controlling territories across Sudan’s porous
borders with Libya, Washington’s rapprochement could be a signal it
may be settling for a stable if objectionable regime. Sudan’s
opposition, disjointed and lacking trust among the Sudanese, doesn’t
present a compelling alternative at the moment.
There may be ways, however, to influence a desirable political
transformation in Sudan. Over the past years, the ruling party has
grappled with infighting and a succession crisis. President Bashir,
who reportedly only ran in the 2015 election because his party
couldn’t agree on a replacement, is likely to step down in the next
couple of years (provided he trusts he won’t be extradited to the
ICC). Washington’s decision to engage more closely at this delicate
time could be an opportunity to bolster moderates and steer Sudan
towards a gradual opening.
Way forward
Obama’s executive order presents an important step towards a new
chapter in US-Sudan relations. But to what extent change will be
realised remains uncertain.
Trade will only take off if the international banking system feels
confident enough to relax its de-risking policies towards Sudan. As
long as Sudan remains on the list of state sponsors of terrorism,
banks may not see the recent policy shifts as a strong enough signal
to reengage with Sudan.
More importantly, the permanent revocation of the trade embargo will
need to be confirmed by the new administration before 12 July 2017.
Depending on how strongly Donald Trump disagrees with Obama’s policy,
the president-elect could also rescind the general license issued by
the Treasury.
Trump and his nominee for secretary of state, former ExxonMobile CEO
Rex Tillerson, have yet to make clear the new administration’s
position on Sudan. It’s likely to be the result of a tug of war
between Christian and human rights lobbies, who will likely pressure
Trump to reverse Obama’s reconciliatory move, and the administration’s
economic interest, not least in the oil sector.
Much will also depend on whether the government of Sudan will seize
this opportunity to start a new chapter, stick to its promises and
start making genuine efforts to bring about reform.
Simona Foltyn is a freelance journalist covering East Africa. You can
follow her on Twitter @simonafoltyn.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or
subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your
feed reader.
This entry was posted in African Politics Now, Making Sense of the
Sudans. Bookmark the permalink.
One thought on “Easing Sudan’s sanctions: Lifeline for Bashir or
catalyst for change? ”
Khalid AlMubarak says:
January 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm
As a new “Sudan Expert” Ms Flotyn recently wrote that the Civil
Disobedience in Sudan was a success.That flew in the face of facts(the
government was not overthrown as was the intention) and contradicted
the assessment of almost all Western observers who are usually
sympathetic to the Sudanese opposition.This is a slightly better
article.
A revised version would benefit from mentioning that the lifting
of sanctions was a firm promise made to the Sudan if it didn’t
obstruct the Southern Sudan Referendum and accepted its outcome.The
Sudan delivered ;but the US administration procrastinated until last
week.Moreover ,since 2005 the Sudan is ruled by a coalition
government.Many of those who campaigned behind the scenes for lifting
the sanctions were not members of the NCP(e.g. Anis Hajjar and his
son,Ihab Ibrahim Mohamed Osman and Usama Daud) Sufi sects also
campaigned against the sanctions.Independent writers like the present
writer also called for lifting the sanctions .
Furthermore,the Sudan could not have withstood the suffocating
embargo without the changed multi-polar world landscape.What the US
denied was available through China,India ,Russia and other countries
.The Sudan lost a great deal .Its Sudan airways ,railways,health
institutions and banking were decimated;but US businesses lost too and
many US companies were pushing for a change of policy.
Ms Flotyn seems to have a blind spot to the government’s social
achievements,mainly the empowerment of women.More in parliament than
in most Western democracies.They are not barred from top jobs in
the judiciary(as is the case in most Arab and Muslim-majority
countries including Egypt).
As far as the political space is concerned ,all registered
political parties have centres and are free to organize and publish
criticism of the government.The example Ms Flotyn gives is
misleading.In the presence of armed rebels vowing to overthrow the
government by force ,robust vigilance is understandable.We all know
the quite exceptional measures taken by the US and UK when national
security seemed to be at stake.
Those who will try to reverse President Obama’s welcome and wise
partial lifting of sanctions are members of the now discredited
“Washington Elite” lobbyists who worked below the radar for decades to
undermine the Sudan .Their main “success” is the tragic situation in
South Sudan.
--
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/southsudankob
View this message at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/southsudankob/topic-id/message-id
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14ophU_BKU_cb2-kXdckQFT3Nbqpu19KBS2Vsp3pH4Vsb8Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
