Sudan's 'domestic' terrorism By Francis M. Deng,from :The Washington Times -- February 27, 1997

Sudan's 'domestic' terrorism


By

Francis M. Deng,

Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently stated that the United States will press the United Nations for tougher economic sanctions against the military government of the National Islamic Front (NIF) in the Sudan. This underscores the extent to which the Sudan has become notorious more for its links to international terrorism and the destabilization of the region than for its dismal internal record of bad governance.

Sudan's profile has been stained by a devastating civil war, ruthless oppression, and gross violations of human rights. Nor is this internal situation disconnected with Sudan's external image. Quite the contrary, domestic crises directly account for Sudan's links to terrorist allies abroad.

The international community should now go beyond demanding from the regime the handing over of the terrorists who were involved in the June 1995 assassination attempt on President Hosni Mubarak to address the root causes of terrorism at home. Ending the war in the South and restoring multiparty democracy and respect for human rights would stop the Sudan from being a regional and international menace.

At present, regional and international preoccupation with the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and its linkage to international terrorism has drawn attention away from the civil war and the struggle for democracy and respect for fundamental freedoms inside the country. This has created an international confrontation-line whose objectives are ill-defined and diffuse and therefore ineffectively pursued. By posing as the victim of an ineffective international campaign, supposedly led by the United States, the regime projects itself as David against Goliath and wins the sympathy of kindred regimes in the Arab-Islamic world, while steaming up patriotic sentiments among its domestic supporters against external pressures.

And so, while the Sudan makes occasional headlines on the issue of international terrorism, very few outside the country see terrorism as an external manifestation of a problem with deep-rooted domestic causes. Ultimately, these causes are traceable to the identity crisis of the nation, represented by two extreme visions, the religious one pursued by the Islamic regime in Khartoum and the secular, democratic and pluralistic vision proposed by the SPLM/SPLA.

Northern opposition parties and the SPLM/SPLA have now joined forces in an umbrella association called the National Democratic Alliance, whose objective is the overthrow of the regime, the restoration of multi-party democracy and a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the South.

The combined forces of the NDA and the SPLA have recently intensified their military operations against the government and have captured a series of towns and garrisons along the eastern and southern fronts, reversing the military superiority the government has enjoyed against the SPLM/SPLA in recent years. This reversal comes at a time when members of the NDA have agreed on a framework for ending the war in the South, once they succeed in overthrowing the regime.

Except for the stipulated overthrow of the regime, and some cautious language on the role of religion in public life, this framework is based on the Declaration of Principles the mediation committee of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development presented to the parties in 1994 for negotiating an end to the conflict. The declaration includes the right of self-determination for the South, giving unity a chance, and putting in place the necessary conditions to support and sustain unity. These conditions include separation of religion and state, decentralization of government, pluralistic democracy and respect for fundamental rights.

The United States and the international community would do well to persuade all the parties including the Government, to negotiate peace on the basis of these principles. The fact that it is the framework of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development rather than the NDA framework (which calls for the overthrow of the regime) that would be the basis for negotiation, should provide the Government with a face-saving device and an incentive for resuming the talks.

Francis M. Deng, a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, was formerly Sudan Ambassador to Canada, Scandinavia, and Washington, and minister of state for foreign affairs.

Back to Articles

umy photoalbumus.thing about my selfusmall dictionary of Atbaraugeneral facts about Sudan ugreat words of geatest peopleusome of my projects and articlesusudanese organizations in Polandusudan's culture and sudanese historyutop 20 of the best sudanese web pagesuarticles and views about the Sudanese subjectuthe International Campaign to Restore Democracy u