Sudan, The Next In Line

Sudan has been collapsing for years now. The country has been hit by two, count them, two, defensive insurgencies. One involved the primarily Christian and animist South which has sought for decades to free itself from the remote, predominately Arab Muslim North. The other is the ongoing morass called "Darfur."

Both have been expensive in lives lost. Both have been inconclusive to date. Both, but more importantly the one in the South, are on the brink of renewal.

At the same time the central government, the Muslim one in Khartoum under the unpleasant leadership of a born-again proponent of violent political Islam, Omar al-Bashir, is not given to compromise with US policy requirements. Nor is the indicted war criminal inclined to renounce violence either "official" or through the use of informal mechanisms resembling the pogroms of Imperial Russia.

Khartoum has much at stake. The territorial integrity of Africa's largest country is at risk, quite explicit risk given the referendum scheduled under the 2005 truce deal brokered by the Bush/Cheney administration. Also at great risk is the future of the oil rich land surrounding the city of Abyei and extending into the South.

The referendum on the status of the South is currently scheduled for January 2011. A second vote is to be held on the Abyei question. There is no doubt but the Black African population of the South will vote for independence. Not surprisingly the Arab Muslim North will take the opposite position.

A vote for succession in highest probability will restart the southern insurgency. It will be every bit as bloody and destructive as the the twenty-one years of fighting which ended with the truce. Too much is in play to allow either side to settle for much less than a total victory, a victory which will give the winner all or the vast majority of the cash flow from the extensive oil deposits.

Even without the enormous cash cow mooing away under the sands of the South, the legacy of the first round of insurgency as well as the generations of antipathy which preceded 1984 would be enough to assure an internal war viewed by both North and South as a total war of national survival. The long-standing animus held by Arab Muslim for African Christian or animist is returned measure for measure. That enough insures any future war will be fought without any restraint.

The passions both North and South are deep, hot, and sufficient to power Sudan into a condition tantamount to Somalia. That potential is more than enough to bring many a night without sleep to the Deep Thinkers responsible for US policy in the area.

The policies adopted and actions taken by outside powers have done nothing to facilitate a negotiated end to the brewing war. The indictment of Bashir by the International Criminal Court was notably ill-considered. This action provided instant support for Bashir by the majority of African states whose collective political leadership has come to conclude (with some justice) that the ICC singles out African rulers for unique attention. At the same time the indictment provided the Organization of the Islamic Conference and even the Arab League to rally around Bashir's flag.

No matter how distasteful any governmental figure in any member state of these several organizations might find Bashir and his government, the identity politics so central to each group demands solidarity in the face of "Western" threat. Beyond providing a diplomatic prop for the odious Omar, the support given him by these three international entities constitute a potent antidote to foreign pressure on Khartoum.

Not that the outsiders have much more potential pressure points at their disposal. As all American policy makers holding a brief for Sudan must recognize full well, Sudan is under sanctions equivalent to those applied to Iran or North Korea. This means there ain't a whole lot of options for those who believe against all odds in the efficacy of sanctions.

The only set of divisions rivaling those in Sudan are the splits in the Heavyweight Strategists of Team Obama. While Mr Obama has been concerned with the important matters such as where to take the next family vacation and Ms Clinton worried over how to pin the human rights violator's tail on the UN Human Rights Council donkey, the Sudan policy questions have been handed over to the bench.

The polar opposites on the bench are Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador, and J. Scott Gration, Mr Obama's Special Envoy. These two can agree on only one basic premise: Sudan is a mess and likely to get worse.

The opposing views of Ms Rice and Mr Gration were painted over last October when the administration after months of gestation and labor delivered itself of a non-policy policy. Depending upon whether or not the Sudanese government(s) met or did not meet specified milestones, the defaulter(s) would either be rewarded or punished.

"Duh" doesn't adequately cover the rational response to this monumental effort in diplomatic genius.

Ms Rice has been possessed of a deep, visceral distaste for the Bashir regime since she personally witnessed some of the consequences of Khartoum's version of counterinsurgency in Darfur. There can be little doubt but she favors "punishment," preferably of the sort awarded to Saddam Hussein.

Mr Gration for reasons which he has not articulated in a convincing way advocates a policy of "rewards." He is all for providing incentives to Khartoum. The nature of the incentives as well as the intended results are less than clear.

In the field Joe Biden has been doing what passes for heavy lifting. He has met with Silva Kiir the Honcho of All Honchos in South Sudan. Mr Kiir is all in favor of (a) peace, (b) independence and (c) the US doing "something." Joe I-Am-Too-An-Adult Biden also achieved a breakthrough of world historical importance in that he gained the support of Egypt for the referendum.

Not that Egypt hauls much freight in Khartoum. (What freight Cairo might haul is contained in the escalating dispute between Egypt and Sudan over water, the all-important water of the Nile.)

China hauls beaucoup more freight with Bashir (and Kiir.) Chinese influence in the two Sudans is predicated upon Chinese national interest. Specifically, the same interest which has occasioned Beijing's large position in Iran--the need for secure, long term oil supplies preferably at below world market prices.

The president apparently understands China's pivotal position in each of the two Sudans. He raised the issue of the referendum in his bilateral meeting with Chinese president Hu Jintao. Their meeting was polite and the Troll From Beijing noncommittal. It was rather the same as the conversations the two men have had regarding Iran.

No matter how events play out in Sudan, the Trolls have covered their bets. Also it can be assumed the Chinese will throw decisive weight behind the contender providing the better deal.

Mr Obama also attended a meeting between his National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones USMC (ret), and former president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who has been designated as the main man for implementing the results of the referendum. (Of course, for Mr Mbeki to be a player, the referendum must come to pass and the results not attended by overwhelming violence, but it seems Mr Obama is a perpetual optimist.)

It's a bit of a poser. The US and other Western countries have very little left in the sanctions area. The US and other Western countries have very little if any influence. While the subject of inducements is open, the only one likely to have a positive impact on Khartoum would be a quashing of the ICC indictment with guarantees it would not be reissued at some convenient future date.

This option would not prove popular with many countries of the EU where the abstract of "justice" has more potency than the avoidance of one more spectacle of African blood letting. (It probably would be no more popular with the American president considering his touching faith in equal justice under law in the international arena.)

There is no realistic way the administration might hope to play a "China card" as Beijing has no compelling reason to play a constructive role in the situation. Their interests are already covered, and the Trolls of Beijing have a well-founded belief in the competence of their intelligence and foreign services to know the right moment to make a move and the right move to make.

In principle one option is left by apparent default. This would be the Rice-favored Adventure in Regime Change. Real world constraints of a self-evident nature confine this option to the realm of the hypothetical.

In any even the administration has about a month, maybe two at a stretch, if there is going to be even a remote chance of the independence referendum being held early next year. Forget January. But, unless the Southerners have a firm belief the referendum will take place before the long, hot days of summer, the insurgency may start without delay.

A policy must be in place before the votes are counted here if there are going to be any votes to count in Sudan. Then, unless the policy can (a) defang Bashir, (b) assure with credible guarantees Southern independence, (c) demarcate the border in an agreeable way, (d) divide oil revenues in a way seen by both North and South as equitable, (e) provide a way to prevent the Darfur conflict from spreading, and (f) create an effective way to police and neutralize the border between North and South, the war will crank back up anyway.

Then, Sudan will become a blood soaked geographical expression rather resembling Somalia on a far grander scale. At this point al-Qaeda and other proponents of violent political Islam can genuflect deeply, bounce their foreheads on the mosque floor, and give heartfelt thanks to a most merciful and compassionate Allah for providing a new and improved base in their effort to bring "peace to the "House of War."

Ain't that a wonderful picture?

ADMIN NOTE: The Geek invites, welcomes and will post all on topic comments. Due to spam comments he has been forced to take defensive measures. He apologizes for any frustration which may ensue.

The World--The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Well, war fans, Coach Obama has announced the new game plan for the Afghanistan venue. As a hot wash, it looks good. At least it has all the features widely touted by a counterinsurgency specialist at all the US military schools ten and more years ago.

According to the model presented back then, an insurgency had several major components. All of them had to be addressed with effect if the battle for the human terrain was to be won by the counterinsurgents.

The starting point of the model was simply that most people in an insurgent environment simply want to be left alone, left in peace to do their own thing, raise their children and hope for a better life in the future. That starting condition is met in Afghanistan.

Focusing on the insurgent force(s) the model posited three circles, nested one inside the other.

The outer, largest circle was the passive mass support base, people who were willing to cooperate with the insurgents as long as doing so required minimal risk.

The next circle was the active mass support base. This group provided direct, material support to the insurgency including fighters both full and part-time.

Finally there was the hard core insurgents. The full-time, fiercely dedicated militants who were ready and able to give their all to achieve the goal of the insurgency.

On the counterinsurgent side the circles were equal and opposite. The government had its own hard core, its own active mass support base and an outer fringe of passive supporters.

Surrounding both sets of circles was the majority of the population. The ever present people in the middle whose support and allegiance or at least tacit acceptance would be necessary to final victory by either side.

The new strategy announced by President Obama contains features which are explicitly directed to the overlapping tasks of killing the hard core insurgents, demobilizing support from the insurgent active and passive mass support base and seeking to attract members of the uncommitted majority to the government's passive (and it is to be hoped, active) mass support base. This is precisely the approach which should have been taken by "shock-and-awe" delusionist Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon ninnies at the get-go seven plus years ago.

(That assessment is given with the predicate that for domestic political reasons and to placate the sensitivities of High Minded Western Europeans, the US had rejected the rational approach of a punitive expedition which would have been quick, dirty, conclusive and left Afghanistan as it was found--a collection of tribes in uneasy coexistence open to Pakistani hegemony.)

The Obama strategy kind of, sort of addresses the sanctuary problem. Doing something effective with the FATA is absolutely essential if the US is going to achieve the necessary strategic minimum of abating the threat of transnational terror acts planned and commanded from that region.

Cross-border sanctuaries bedeviled the US throughout the War in Vietnam. Bombing raids and cross-border incursions never settled the problem and, arguably, enhanced them. The use of deep penetration special operations forces including indigeneous but American led paramilitary groups provided the start of a solution but were never carried out for sufficient duration with sufficient forces.

The single largest swamp of doubt in the Obama strategy is the will and capacity of Pakistan to work with positive results to end the insurgency in the FATA. So far there is no indication that Islamabad either understands the counterinsurgency model outlined above or, if it does, has both the will and capacity to at accordingly.

The Pakistani military and paramilitary forces have undertaken any number of highly visible operations in the FATA but without noticable effect. The sweeps have generated refugees and resentments in wholesale quantities which has (if history is a guide) benefited the insurgents and only the insurgents.

The "peace" agreements recently concluded with "moderate" Islamists are not any sign of Islamabad demobilizing support for the Taliban insurgents. The men who signed on behalf of the "moderate" Islamists are themselves neither moderate nor pro-status quo. The groups which hold sway now in Swat and areas of the FATA are totalists in pursuit of the same ends as the trigger-pullers and suicide vest wearers. Identity of ends implies identity of interests, identity of support for Islamism and identity of opposition to the current regime.

Without Pakistan as a full and effective collaborator in the border area, the US in Afghanistan is in the same position as it was with relationship to Cambodia and Laos during the War in Vietnam. The insurgents and their external supporters have both base areas and lines of supply readily available on soil controlled by ineffectual or pro-insurgent governments.

Overall, the preliminary assessment of Coach Obama's new game plan must be mixed. It does not have a real thrust to the sanctuary conundrum. It is very good on paper in the pure counter insurgency component. But, paper ain't practice. And, there is a very wide and deep gulf of difficulty between the words on paper and the doings in the field.

So much for the "good." Now for the "bad."

The International Criminal Court (ICC) tops the list of the bad today. This creation of the High Minded and Lofty Thinking legalists of Europe and elsewhere has shown once more (if such needed to be demonstrated yet again) that High Minded behavior that ignores the messy realities of human activity automatically invokes the Law of Unintended Consequences. Take a dekko--

Omar Bahsir has cocked a snoot at the ICC and the High Minded generally with his recent trips. True, he has been properly cautious flying only to countries coterminous with Sudan. (The first real, albeit theoretical risk will come when and if Omar jets off to Doha for the Arab League get together.)

The Trips of Omar have not been intended nor have they served simply to make a rude gesture toward the ICC. They have been intended to underscore the degree of antipathy held by the African Union and, more to the point, the Arab League for the ICC issued arrest warrant. They also serve to ramp up the pressure on the UN Security Council to suspend the warrant.

The Tribulations of Omar have had the unintended consequence of highlighting the alleged "double standard" held by the West regarding presumed violations perpetrated by the IDF in Gaza. This argument will gain great force with the accusations currently hurled at Israel regarding the actions of its forces during Operation Cast Lead.

Then, of course, the ICC action put the refugees of Darfur squarely in the cross hairs. The ejection of major international aid groups and other subsequent actions by Omar Bashir's regime were both predictable and (in the eyes of the regime) justified. Considering that the regime has shown itself quite willing to see the population of Darfur die in large numbers, there is no reason to believe that it will suddenly turn tender in its affections for the displaced and mal-treated Muslims of the predominantly black refugee population.

There is also no reason to believe that threats to hold Bashir responsible for the consequences of the ejection of aid workers such as were made by SecState Clinton prior to her we-feel-your-pain visit to Mexico will have any useful effect. How many arrest warrants can the ICC issue on one man? How many new charges can it bring? What difference will that make?

The ICC and its High Minded backers are definitely "bad" on this issue. One can only hope that the Security Council will bring some political sanity to the matter. That would be "good."

And now, the "ugly."

Seeing the "ugly" in international affairs in the past few days isn't as hard as it seems. The UN Human Rights Council runs away with the title.

And, why is that?

By a vote of 23-11 with 13 abstentions, the foes of free expression and those of a cowardly disposition passed the measure long pushed by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which seeks to ban something called "defamation of religion."

The relevant language reads, "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of adherents and inciting religious violence." Zeroing in on the real deal, the resolution continues, "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

Oy veh! The chutzpah of the OIC is nothing short of overwhelming. Either that or the panjandrums of the group are living in an alternative reality. While the resolution has no binding effect and similar language has been removed from the draft outcome document for Durban II, this exercise in Orwellian distortion and speech suppression is nonetheless the nose of the camel in the tent of the West.

There are already misguided public opinion molders and political figures in Western countries such as the goo-brained Canadian whose name the Geek gags at writing who have honestly (?) argued that religions and their adherents deserve special protection lest sensitivities be irritated. By this reasoning (if that word is accurate) the British medical journal Lancet deserves severe castigation for having editorially accused Pope Benedict XVI of having "publicly distorted science" in his recent remarks regarding the non-utility of condoms in preventing HIV infection.

Hey, the Pope likes cats. He's gotta be a sensitive sort of guy, right? And, his religious postulates regarding sexual conduct are a matter of Church doctrine. He and they have been defamed within the scope of the wording adopted by the Human Rights Council.

Suppressing speech, expression generally, inquiry, are all ugly. Almost as ugly as shouting, "Allahu akbar" while flying an aircraft into a building, pushing the clicker on a suicide vest while in a mosque or stoning, burning or beheading women. But, the Geek can't write that, given that Islam is "defamed" by his words.

Right. Fer sure, dudes.

High Minded Morality Hurts People--Again

Omar al-Bashir is a very unpleasant person. He is almost into the Idi Amin category and could, now that the High Minded are helping him, aspire to the status of Pol Pot.

The International Criminal Court is another UN invention intended to please the High Minded and Lofty Thinking types who really, really believe that there is such a critter as enforceable international law. So far the ICC has enjoyed a somewhat paltry catch, thuggish characters from the former Serbian government and a pair of sociopaths from failed African states.

These international felons were at the time of their arrest former heads of state or members of deposed governments. But, now the ICC seeks the heights of issuing an arrest warrant for a sitting head of state. Presumably, after sitting around one of the marijuana selling cafes in Amsterdam, the worthies of the ICC thought that had they only been around in the 1930s the world could have been spared the worst excesses of Adolph Hitler or Joe Stalin both of whom were well known for wholesale internal massacres undertaken for ideological reasons.

The comparison of Omar al-Bashir with two of the three greatest mass slaughterers in history is unfair to the Sudanese. (For ten points name the third.) Still, his notion of effective counterinsurgency seems akin to the notion of creating a desert and calling it peace. And, there seems little doubt that Omar is motivated by ideological considerations.

Al-Bashir is an Islamist. His supporters and corps of executioners are Islamists. His victims in the main are infidels who according to Islamist interpretations of Islam deserve to be sent to hell with all possible dispatch. A small minority of Omar's targets are merely observant Muslims who fail to support his Allah driven agenda of religious and ethnic purification with sufficient ardor.

There is good and sufficient reason to cap Omar with or without due process of law.

But, the reach of the ICC far exceeds its grasp.

As a drearily predictable consequence of this exercise in judicial hubris a lot of people are going to suffer. Suffer greatly. Suffer, in many cases, unto death.

Just how the hell gripless are the members of the ICC? Did these inflated egos really expect that al-Bashir would fly up to Amsterdam and submit to arrest? Go to the nearest Dutch embassy and ask to be handcuffed forthwith?

Omar, the African Union and the Arab League, to say nothing of Sudan's number one trading partner and foreign investment, China, all warned that any issuance of an arrest warrant would be counterproductive. Even relatively moderate Muslim states such as Jordan evidenced support for their embattled coreligionist.

Making support more than mere rhetoric, a Chinese company signed a contract to build roads two days after the ICC demanded al-Bashir's incarceration pending trial. Hello! Is there anybody home at the ICC.

Omar did the expected. Hot on the heels of the warrant, the Sudanese government cancelled the operating licenses of thirteen international aid organisations and booted their collective posteriors out of the country. As an instant riposte the ICC made threats that the humanitarian crisis expected as a consequence might result in yet more charges against the president of Sudan.

Wow! That ought to give old Omar pause for thought. Right. Fer sure, Dudes of the ICC.

Has no one noticed within the Legions of the High Minded that pressure consolidates political will of the target long before it might crush that will? History is replete with examples of that principle. If history is too tough a subject, consider how a snowball is made.

Right. You squeeze loose flakes and they become a ball. Squeeze long and hard enough the once flaky stuff becomes a headbopping iceball.

Get the picture, you of the High Minded?

Now the ICC, Darling of the High Minded, has placed a couple of million Sudanese in harm's way. In case anyone has missed it the refugee camps in the desert lack a few amenities such as water, food, adequate protection from the elements and basic medical care. All of these were provided by the High Minded outfits expelled by al-Bashir.

So, now what?

One possibility is that the UN Security Council will suspend or otherwise overrule the ICC's action. This is the preferred option as it will allow a face saving way for the situation to be defused and the international aid organisations to return to their essential work.

China's position on the Security Council and its critical role not only in Sudan but in relation to other vexing US concerns makes this action viable. That is if the US goes along with it. We have the veto. And, given the predilections of our ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, coupled with President Obama's inability to "even fake an interest in foreign policy" our use of the veto to block any suspension of the warrant is not an impossible outcome.

There is an alternative. Regime change. But, Sudan today is not Panama twenty years ago. It is not even Afghanistan in 2002.

No national leader of any country well oriented as to time and place is going to support in any way, shape or manner an invasion of Sudan. To the probable dismay of Ms Rice and others of a High Minded nature, ousting Omar at the point of a bayonet and frog marching the perp in handcuffs, shackles and disgrace to the Netherlands is a non-starter.

Reality dictates that unless and until a well-placed bullet preferably fired by a gun in Sudanese hands solves the problem the world is stuck with Omar al-Bashir. The best thing to do is cooperate in a Security Council action to suspend or even quash the warrant and get the aid workers back to the job.

The Geek is not to be numbered among the twenty-six percent of Americans who have a favorable view of the UN and its major subsidiaries. He lost all faith in that Utopian outfit when it shifted its mission from maintaining international peace (its original function) to mucking about in the internal matters of member states.

The al-Bashir episode shows one more time that the UN and all its manifold coercive creations such as the ICC should stick to the task of keeping international peace. Anything else invites entrance into morasses in which there is no easy or clean exit. Walking into the internal dynamics of a state--even a thugocracy such as Sudan--hurts the innocent and assures the guilty have a stronger grip on power.

The US, China and the OIC--Strange Bed Buddies

The decision by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to seek an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, has made for a surprising and awkward joining of interests between the US, the PRC and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

OK, perhaps not so much a juncture of interests as an intersection of anxiety. The crossing is marked by the ICC. The Chinese don't like it at all. The US is uncomfortable with it. Many member states of the OIC are afraid of it.

The Geek has to admit he is not thrilled by this monument to international High Mindedness either. It strikes him as another example of an emotion driven, feel-good reaction to the atrocious behavior of a small number of zealots and True Believers in leadership positions.

The 1998 Rome Statute which created the ICC conferred an ambiguously broad jurisdiction on the court charging it with authority to try and convict individuals regardless of status for a portmanteau of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. As a result of the breadth of jurisdiction and the grave potential for abuse of a politically or ideologically based nature, the current administration withdrew the assent granted to the Rome Statute by President Clinton in 2000. As a result the Statute has never been presented to the Senate for ratification.

Despite the fact that the US is not a party to the court, the current administration is loath to take any action which might be seen as granting any legitimacy to the ICC. As a result the W. Bush Administration has been, at best, ambivalent in its response to the widely applauded decision of prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to seek the arrest warrant. To get the skinny, go to the AP http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPO0qnku-2vJhJuBSUT5B8Qc61AAD91U5QC80.

The PRC, not unlike fellow Security Council member, Russia, opposes the ICC as it does all attempts by international entities to involve themselves in matters which are arguably of a purely internal nature. While Beijing officials aren't about to go on TV making so blunt a statement (particularly with the Olympic Games days away), there is not a shred of doubt regarding the government's position. The last thing China wants given its own record on suppressing internal political dissent is the potential for outside judgement.

(For the full Chinese position on the ICC arrest effort see the official news dispatch
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2394265&title=China_Expresses_Serious.html)

The same is true with respect to Russia. (Can we say, "Chechnya?")

Thus there is a good to excellent chance that the UN Security Council will interdict the prosecutor's efforts to see Omar in the slam. Any Security Council blockage will be suitably camouflaged and concealed, lest the High Minded of the world take umbrage.

And, umbrage will be taken. If not by governments, then by high profile non-governmental organisations. One has already given notice in an interview with Voice of America. The Save Darfur Coalition Policy Director Amjad Atallah, gave notice that his vocal group expects the Security Council to meet the same high standards as the ICC prosecutor. VOA has the interview http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2008-07-15-voa43.cfm.

Finally the OIC has rung in with a statement by its General Secretary to the effect that the attempt to seek the arrest of Bashir represents a "double standard." The OIC jefe clearly means that if Omar the Butcher ends up in the hoosegow in the Hague, OIC demands that he be joined in durance vile by any number of Israeli political and military figures. You can check the Geek's interpretation at http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/topic_detail.asp?t_id=1226.

Omar and his regime are not nice. The Sudanese government both under Omar and his predecessors has shown a remarkable appetite for bloodshed and an amazing willingness to see large numbers of Sudanese (particularly those who are Black and non-Muslim) die as a result of starvation caused by government action as well as more active measures. In principle, bringing the entire thuggish crew of mass killers to trial is a fine idea.

But we must remember the yawning gap between principle and practice. That gap serves to define the universe of unintended consequences which may well ensue. In Sudan these consequences might well entail further suffering and death.

Beyond the Sudan the consequences which may very well result from the precedent established by an arrest warrant bearing the name Omar al-Bashir could spread very wide. Politics and ideology permeate the air of High Minded international entities such as the ICC. Much as the Geek is uncomfortable with having a position which coincides with that of the current administration (let alone the PRC), he has to agree that the ICC is a field of landmines and one must walk very, very softly and slowly in such an area.