 |
Street corner in the Arabian Market district of Khartoum
(RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) |
|
With economic sanctions exacting an intensified toll amid the pandemic and humanitarian crises fraying the peace at political borders, 40 million people in the East African Republic of Sudan may hope that long awaited normalization of relations with the United States will bolster stability and produce prosperity. Meanwhile, in Washington, American tort claims have thrown a wrench into the diplomatic works.
Unending War
Before its 2011 division into north and south, Sudan was the largest country in Africa. Its location is strategically important. Sudan borders Libya and Egypt to the north, the lifeline of the Nile flowing into the latter. The country's Red Sea coast positions Port Sudan opposite Jeddah and Mecca. Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR) sit to the west, and Eritrea and Ethiopia to the east—where more than 40,000 Ethiopian refugees have fled conflict and now strain Sudan's thin resources. Tumultuous northern regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Uganda, the latter yielding the Nile, lie in reach of South Sudan's capital, Juba, along with a disputed stretch of border with Kenya.
At last abandoning imperial ambition in 1953, the British left Sudan to the tempest of regime rise-and-fall that tragically characterized post-colonial power vacuum in Africa. The country declared itself independent in 1956, but for a quarter century, no one form of government would stick. An Islamic state brought about some political consistency in 1983, but plenty of ills, too: reigniting civil war between north and south, and paving the path of three decades' dictatorship and an abysmal human rights record under President Omar al-Bashir, from 1989 to 2019.
 |
Part of embassy bombing memorial in Dar es Salaam
|
Relations with the United States went from bad to worse after Sudan backed Iraq in the 1990-91 Gulf War. Osama bin Laden took up residence in Khartoum for five years at that time. He built a favorable reputation for philanthropy by building legitimate businesses and financing infrastructure projects, such as the main highway, named for him, linking Khartoum to Port Sudan. In 1993, the United States listed Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism. Under U.S. pressure, Sudan expelled bin Laden in 1996. But Sudan was not spared blame when al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, killing 224 people, including 12 U.S. citizens, and injuring thousands. U.S. retaliation included a cruise-missile strike against a Khartoum chemical plant—unfortunately and very likely a target accused erroneously of complicity in chemical weapons manufacture.
Ironically, the bin Laden-orchestrated terror attacks of September 11, 2001, set Sudan and the United States on a winding road of fits and starts toward reconciliation. U.S. President George W. Bush recognized the need for American allies on the East African doorstep to the Middle East. U.S. policy leveraged austere sanctions to incentivize Sudanese cooperation in counter-terrorism, and the Bashir regime was supportive.
Sudan needed help, too. The civil war between the Islamic government in Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), started in 1983, had never ended. The exhausting conflict, which ultimately cost more than 2 million civilian lives, was dragging into one of the longest civil wars in modern history—besides that it was really a sequel to the never-quite-resolved first Sudanese civil war of 1955 to 1972, another tragically typical consequence, in part, of arbitrary colonial political borders. Multi-national diplomatic interventions helped at last to draw the war to a close in 2005. The peace agreement led to the secession of South Sudan in 2011, a development that seemed promising at the time, but since has seen the two states teetering ceaselessly on the brink of combustion.
In 2017, the Obama Administration further loosened sanctions on Sudan. A coup in 2019 sent Bashir from office the same way he came in, and in 2020, Sudan reconstituted itself as a secular state. Al-Bashir, 76, is now in prison for corruption. Marking a significant policy reversal, the government has signaled that it might be willing to turn Bashir over to the International Criminal Court for prosecution in connection with the genocide in Darfur during the second civil war. In October, the Trump administration moved to clear the way for U.S. businesses to reenter Sudan, bargaining the country's de-listing as a state sponsor of terrorism in exchange for Sudanese recognition of Israel. The administration was accused of too-little-too-late effort to bolster its foreign policy portfolio in the run-up to the 2020 election, but, at this point, the end means more than the motive.
Persistent Perseverance
In short order, Sudan has transformed from war-torn religious state, ruled by a dictator accused of crimes against humanity, to secular constitutional democracy, pivotal in Middle East peace and primed for western commercial investment. In other words, Sudan might be in the midst of a remarkably rapid transition from paradigmatic problematic state to African success story.
 |
View of Khartoum and the Nile from Corinthia observation level
(RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
|
Long acquainted with the hardships of war and sanctions, the Sudanese have persevered, developing a resilient infrastructure and an enviable standard of living, especially relative to neighbors such as the CAR, the DRC, and Eritrea. Sudanese teens wield smartphones in the dustiest of wayside villages. Sudan has oil and refining capacity, though the division of natural resources between north and south remains a key cause of simmering contention. The Khartoum skyline is dotted with structures infamously financed by deliberate defiance of sanctions. Representative is the Corinthia Hotel: opened in 2008, the oval-shaped building is called "Gaddafi's egg," because Libya paid for its €80m construction.
 |
Wayside fuel and rest area, Shendi-Atbara Road, Al Buqayr
(RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
|
At present, Sudan has one arm tied behind its back. Trucks sit idle in fuel queues. Western credit cards don't work; cash is king. For better and worse, local products, mostly MENA-manufactured, substitute for the usual globalized glut of soda and snack options in the convenience stores, excepting the universe's inexplicably irreducible constant, Coca-Cola.
If sanctions go away, an energizing flow of auto parts, industrial equipment, transnational banking services, and development of telecommunication and physical infrastructure will irrigate Sudan's thirsty landscape. The new constitutional government will be boosted to a threshold on prosperity unprecedented in the nation's history. Already in June, the UK announced a £150m commitment to ease democratic transition and coronavirus impact by combating inflation and poverty. Sudan unbound stands poised to achieve African development in a region that's long been starved of a win.
But There's a Hitch
Tort liability in U.S. courts is presently a sticking point in negotiations over normalization of U.S.-Sudanese relations and the entry of American enterprise in Sudan. In 1996, Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow civil lawsuits against foreign state actors for support of terrorism. Survivors and families of victims of the 1998 embassy bombings sued Sudan in 2001. The lawsuits floundered in the 20-aughts amid confusion over what plaintiffs, defendants, and causes of action Congress intended to authorize. In 2008, Congress clarified the law on those questions and revived the earlier suits.
Subsequently, plaintiffs, numbering more than 700, won an award in federal court of $10.2bn, including $4.3bn in punitive damages. The D.C. Circuit struck the punitive damages, doubting that Congress intended to authorize punitive recovery retroactively. In May 2020, in Opati v. Republic of Sudan, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, vacating the striking of punitive damages and remanding for the lower courts to reconsider. Litigation questions remain on remand. The defense might yet challenge the constitutionality of the retroactive authorization of punitive damages, and it's not clear whether Congress intended foreign plaintiffs to be eligible for punitive awards. Still, the massive compensatory award stands ripe for harvest.
All that litigation might, however, amount to naught if Congress acts again. As a condition of the current agreement over sanctions and Israel, Sudan wants free of the Opati judgment. In October, the State Department indicated willingness to negotiate immunity for Sudan against liability for past acts. But that immunity would require another change of law, and Congress is not yet on board.According to a report in Tuesday's New York Times, Sudan has offered a settlement of $335m, undoubtedly a more realistic number than multiple billions. But Sudan has threatened to exit the agreement in whole if Congress doesn't authorize immunity by year's end. Deadlocked legislators are trying to broker a compromise through a military spending bill in these first weeks of December. To the displeasure of some in Congress, the working proposal would compensate U.S. citizens naturalized subsequently to the 1998 attacks less than those who were citizens at the time—working a de facto racial disparity.
Even if the 1998 claims can be resolved, a bigger hurdle looms in the prospect of blanket immunity-to-date for Sudan. While Sudan did defend the embassy-bombing lawsuits on grounds of FSIA interpretation, it has not responded to the legal claims of, The Hill estimates, about 3,000 family members of September 11 victims who blame Sudan for bin Laden's five-year safe harbor there. According to the New York Times story, those plaintiffs have the support of Senate leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to see that their claims are not extinguished. It seems unlikely that a closely divided Congress would have any appetite to favor foreign tranquility over September 11 victims, no matter how much U.S. businesses are chomping at the bit to trade in Sudan.
 |
Local heroes (with a smartphone) atop Jebel Barkal
(RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
|
Last Week in Sudan
Here in the United States, if we hear about Sudan, it's likely to be in the context of civil war atrocities, the human rights abuses of the Bashir regime, or Middle East tensions. Yet last week in Sudan, I saw little evidence of those worldly matters. On the roads of Khartoum, in the markets, and in the countryside, I found only a gracious and warm people, a rich Nubian cultural tradition, and a stunning archaeological record of our shared human heritage.
Both of those views, the ugly and the beautiful, the grim and the genial, are Sudan. We disregard the former at our hazard. But to disregard the latter, we risk much more.
Sudan is the beating heart of the African continent. Sudan will not forever be deterred by colonial legacy and the politics of aging superpowers. However we manage to balance redress for past wrongs with a way forward, America will have to decide how to be a part of Sudan's future. The only alternative will be to join the crumbling desert relics of Sudan's past.
UPDATE, Dec. 13, 2020: See Conor Finnegan, Trump admin offered $700M to 9/11 victims to save Sudan deal, ABC News, Dec. 11, 2020. UPDATE, Dec. 20, 2020: Sudan's Listing as Sponsor of Terrorism Ended by US, BBC, Dec. 14, 2020.
_logo.png){kind=logo}
.jpg)
