The Khartoum regime is the obstacle to peace in Sudan

International observers often underestimate the extent to which the Islamist military regime in Khartoum is the single most important obstacle to peace in and between the two Sudans. South Sudanese (and the people from Darfur, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, Abyei, eastern Sudan, Nubia in the far north, and indeed ordinary citizens all over Sudan) know the nature of the regime with which they are dealing, which is why they are circumspect about negotiations and steadfast in their military resistance. To point at weaknesses, failures and even abuses by any or all of these parties misses the point that they all feel they are locked in a life or death struggle with a ruthless, sophisticated, patient and very clever adversary (an adversary, incidentally, which can and does run rings around most western politicians, diplomats and analysts).

--John Ashworth

War we can believe in?

Andrew Natsios, a former US envoy to Sudan and former administrator of USAID called on Friday for the US to arm South Sudan with anti-aircraft weapons.

We need only make sure that, for the North, attacking the South is a little bit harder than shooting fish in a barrel.

Maybe providing weaponry inherently built for self-defence is something that a few more people can get on board with than bombing Sudan's air bases or all-out war?

Douglas Johnson on international engagement in Sudan

Douglas Johnson literally wrote the book on the "The Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars," which is considered to be the most authoritative account. 

Writing about Abyei, in May last year, he said;

The international community — particularly the United Nations and the United States — have been spectacularly ineffective in getting the Sudanese government to honor its own agreements.

...

To prevent the Abyei crisis from igniting other conflicts, the international community must stop pretending that both sides are equally at fault. Carrots haven’t worked. Washington will need to wield sticks, such as canceling debt relief talks or suspending normalization of diplomatic relations, if Sudan does not withdraw its forces quickly. But ultimately, Washington has limited leverage over the Sudanese government, having reduced both its diplomatic and economic ties during the civil war. 

The key player will be China.

There was a time though when Washington did have leverage over the Sudanese government, which it used to help broker the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

In early 2002 Khartoum was frightened of being bombed by the U.S. It had been bombed once before, and with its past support for Osama bin Laden, world opinion was against it [Douglas Johnson, again].

Just saying.  

Sudan Links Roundup

Maybe South Sudan isn't losing the PR war after all. Though their taking of Heglig brought international condemnation, at least it brought some attention.

“The government of Sudan has never stopped bombing our innocent civil population even after signing Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). They have continued to do so and indeed intensified air attacks in August 2011 after South Sudan officially became an independent state but the international community has never come out to condemn them," Kiir said on Friday. 

And so Mark Tran from the Guardian just took a trip to Juba,

and there have been a few other "backlash" pieces, including;

Armin Rosen in the The New Republic

by assigning equal blame for the conflict, the Obama administration handed a strategic victory to the same regime in Khartoum responsible for the worst atrocities during the Darfur conflict, while alienating Washington’s Western-leaning partners in Juba. 

Baroness Cox on the Today Programme calling for Britain to impose diplomatic sanctions on Khartoum, saying that

"Khartoum is the major perpetrator of aggression"

and the President of Samaritan's Purse goes as far as calling for military intervention to destroy the runways used by SAF bombers (via @Laurenist);

Now I am asking [the US President] and his administration to do something that may sound unusual for a preacher of the Gospel. I am asking him to use our Air Force to destroy Mr. Bashir’s airstrips - the airstrips his military uses to launch bombers that carry out daily attacks in the Nuba Mountains. The Nuba people don’t want American soldiers - they can fight for themselves. They just want to be free. But they have no defense against bombs dropping from the sky on their villages, schools and hospitals.

Meanwhile Western diplomats have continued to be a little less than diplomatic about Juba in coversation with journalists;

1.   
   BBCAndrewH Arrived in Juba, South Sudan. Gloomy western diplomats blaming "smug, incompetent" govt for leading country towards war and economic chaos. 27 Apr 2025 from web
2. this quote was generated by twtQuote  
   

I'll leave the last word to the President of the "smug, incompetent" government in Juba;

"The Security Council of the United Nations and the international community including the African union and the Arab league has never come out to condemn and hold Sudanese government in Khartoum, particularly President Bashir and his groups responsible for atrocities they have committed against the people of South Sudan and the three areas," he said. 

"They only come out to condemn us when we react to aggression by the Sudanese government within our territories," president Kiir told a crowd with placards calling for immediate border demarcation.

The people of South Sudan and North Sudan deserve better than the pathetic pandering by the international community to a thuggish murderous Khartoum government.

Market failure

Sudanese first Vice-President Ali Osman Mohammad Taha asked the parliament last week to amend laws in order to allow execution of anyone found guilty of smuggling food to South Sudan.

Sudan's heterodox economic strategy to boost its floundering economy by executing exporters. 

Bombing "regrettable but inevitable"

ODI held an interesting event today with several Sudanese officials in Khartoum, which I managed to follow a bit of on twitter. 

Dr Mutrif Siddiq, a former Humanitarian Affairs Minister in the Khartoum government stated that bombing of civilians had been "regrettable but inevitable" and taken place during war. Which is interesting when there has been bombing of civilians for over a decade, and that the method of bombing is almost be definition illegal according to international humanitarian law because it is so inaccurate, and so unable to have any kind of targeting on military forces rather than civilians.

And for a bit of light relief, we heard that "Sudan is one of the few countries that is recording progress in development," (awkwardly timed to coincide with recent IMF estimates for a 7.3% reduction in GDP in 2012) and that "no one has been forced to accept a governor, etc from the center" (apart from in, ahem, Blue Nile, where the democratically elected governor was kicked out for being a bit too dark skinned).

The Orwellian double-speak from the Khartoum regime is incredible.

1. hpg_odi Baroness Cox of APG on Sudan asks Khartoum panel: How do you justify aerial bombardments of civilians in the Nuba mountain? #Khartoumcalling 26 Apr 2025 from web
2. LizFordGuardian Pressed on aerial bombing, Siddiq says it's 'regrettable but inevitable' that bombing occured #khartoumcalling #globaldev 26 Apr 2025 from web
3. LizFordGuardian Bombing was necessary as 'sometimes forces take refuge in villages neighbouring our borders' #khartoumcalling #globaldev 26 Apr 2025 from web
4. hpg_odi "It during war" says Dr Mutrif on aerial bombardments #Khartoumcalling #Sudan #SouthSudan 26 Apr 2025 from web
5. LizFordGuardian 'Sudan is one of the few countries that is recording progress in development fields' says Siddiq #khartoumcalling #globaldev 26 Apr 2025 from web
6. hpg_odi Dr Mutrif: "no one has been forced to accept an appointed governer, etc from the center" #Khartoumcalling 26 Apr 2025 from web
7. this quote was generated by twtQuote
   

Why is media coverage of the Sudan conflict so biased?

Eric Reeves argues that it is about Abyei and a lack of attention to (recent) history:

Some of the confusion in international reporting comes from a failure to follow the course of the dispute over the Abyei border region, which Khartoum seized a year ago. Following Khartoum’s military assault on Abyei town in May 2008, the southern leadership---convinced that the matter could not be resolved militarily---concluded that "final and binding" arbitration of the Abyei border issue was essential, and succeeded in bringing the matter before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague. Though in many ways unfavorable to Juba, the PCA ruling was nonetheless accepted. Khartoum’s land grab last year flouted the court’s "final and binding" ruling, issued in July 2009, which defined the area in which the critical Abyei self-determination referendum was to be held. This abrogation of a key protocol called into serious question Khartoum’s commitment to honor the CPA.

Any other ideas?

Don't get me wrong, Sudan is complicated. I have trouble keeping track of all of the issues.

His conclusion is pretty depressing reading:

If there is to be a chance of peace, the factitious parceling out of equal blame to Juba and Khartoum must end. To be sure, the odds of changing this decades-long pattern seem exceedingly small next to the likelihood of war 

... 

In all likelihood, none of these measures [required for peace] will be taken, with Khartoum’s obduracy used to justify diplomatic fecklessness. But the responsibility for that war will not be Khartoum’s alone. It will be shared by the international leaders who chose the expedient route, even with millions of lives at risk.

Video: Blue Nile Civilians Describe Attacks, Abuses

Human Rights Watch has been interviewing refugees from Blue Nile who have escaped to South Sudan.

They took the baby and she said: "I am breastfeeding my baby." 

They said: "You don't believe in Allah. You are Malik's people who don't believe in Allah... you are not able to take care of your baby." 

And they just shot her with a machine gun.

I'm really not an expert on these matters, but that one sounds a bit like you might describe it as a war crime?

HT: John Ashworth

How Sudanese bombers work

The vast majority of aerial attacks are by Antonov aircraft, Russian cargo planes that Khartoum is reliably reported to be adding to its current fleet. It is crucial here to understand what an Antonov "bomber" is: the Antonov is a Russian-made cargo plane, and in no way designed for use as an attack aircraft. There are no bomb sighting mechanisms; there are no bomb racks or bays; typically, crude (and cheap) barrel "bombs" are filled with scrap metal, unusable ordnance, and other shrapnel-producing materials, as well as an explosive medium---and are simply rolled out the back cargo bay. These bombs explode not with a large blast capability (and often do not explode at all), but have enough force to generate a hail of deadly shrapnel in all directions. Moreover, for protection against ground fire and anti-aircraft fire, the SAF Antonovs typically fly at altitudes of about 5,000 meters---far too high to permit any kind of militarily purposeful aerial targeting. They are not by nature a military weapon, but a tool for civilian destruction and terror.

One more post from Eric Reeves, an extract from his Jan 2012 update report on bombings.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps? (AP South Sudan War Reporting Edition)

Update: My friend just told me off. A lot of these reporters are up around the border right now and have seen some horrific shit. I have mad respect for anyone who is going to the border to report right now. You are far braver than me. There's just not a lot I can do apart from watch this stuff unfold, and get angry when I see what comes across as biased reporting. So without taking back any of the substance of what is below, none of this is personal, and I hugely respect anyone who is risking going to the border.

---

Ahem. So to borrow a meme from Brad Delong, why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

The president of newly independent South Sudan has told China's president that attacks by rival Sudan amount to a declaration of war on his country. 

There has yet to be a formal declaration of war by either of the Sudans, and Salva Kiir's remark, made in Beijing during talks with Hu Jintaoon Tuesday, signals a ratcheting up of rhetoric  between the rival nations, which have been teetering on the brink of war. [my italics]

This is after Omar al-Bashir has called Salva Kiir an insect, vowed to overthrow his democratically elected government, push him out of Juba, and instructed his army that Southerners only understand the language of the gun.

Could someone please explain to AP what "ratcheting up" and "rhetoric" mean?

A history of bombing by the Sudan Air Force in Sudan

As well as maintaining databases of over 1500 individual bombing incidents, Eric Reeves has also put together a handy infographic of bombing incidents in both North and South Sudan conducted by the Khartoum regime. The file is quite big. Blame Khartoum.

Open publication - Free publishing - More bombing

What has UNMISS achieved?

That's a genuine question. The UN Mission in South Sudan cost £500 million in its first year, about half of the entire aid budget (link from Nick Travis). The activities that they are engaged in supporting: disarmament, governance, rule of law, and human rights, are clearly important. They are also some of the most difficult in which to achieve results.

My view is that these activities are a high-value high-risk bet. Whereas investing in health and education is a very safe bet - we can achieve measurable but modest results with reasonable certainty, investing in peace and governance is very risky but with potentially enormous returns. What matters is the expected value of the pay-off and our attitude to risk. So I'd like to see some numbers, even if they are totally made up.

~*Totally made-up numbers alert*~

So lets say that a £500 million aid investment in education and health has a guaranteed pay-off of £750 million.

We get a 50% return on investment.

And a £500 million aid investment in peace and governance has a risky pay off - either
     - a - 10% chance we successfully avert a war - massive massive return - maybe £25 billion* ?
     - b - 90% chance our investment has zero impact, and zero return.

The expected value is a 500% return on investment.

This is where our preferences for risk come in. Do you take the guaranteed 50% return, or do you gamble it all for a 1 in 10 chance of winning a 5000% return?** Or are my numbers totally stupid?

---

* Paul Collier does some guesswork on the costs of civil war in low-income countries - for a country with an average GDP of $19 billion, he estimates an average total cost of around $64 billion (in lost GDP for the country and its neighbours, wasted military expenditure, and loss to life and health). So for South Sudan's GDP of $12 billion, the cost might be $40 billion, or £25 billion.

** A poker player with enough chips to play with would obviously go for the highest expected value return no matter how risky. The decision gets trickier when you are running short of chips, and it becomes more costly to take low probability bets. So our rational attitude to risk depends on how many chips we have to play with. You might argue that the aid budget is small compared to expenditure needs for basic service provision, so we are really short stacked...

Addendum: Frontier Economics estimate the cost of war for all of Sudan (North and South?) at $75 billion.

Addendum 2: These numbers will change quite a bit when you consider that the £500 million peacekeeping investment is per year and the war costs are calculated over the lifetime of a war and its aftermath.

Addendum 3: All of this is besides the point I started with in my head, which is that UNMISS seems to have nothing on its website about any actual results. I'd like to see some explicit discussion of what they think that their outcomes are, or if there aren't any, if this is because there is an implicit calculation similar to the one above that they are doing, any a total lack of results is actually completely consistent with spending large sums of money on bets with very very large potential payoffs. 

Why Hitchens supported War on Iraq?

Hitchens is a devotee of Orwell; some have suspected a self-conscious desire to emulate him, right down to the jacket photographs with accompanying cigarette. Yet many admirers of Orwell admit to a stab of envy: he was lucky to be writing in such epic times, they moan, reporting on the titanic struggles of the twentieth century; if only we were blessed with such material, we too could reach those heights. By this light, reporting on Cyprus in the 1970s was all very well, but Guernica it was not. 

And then along come the September 11 attacks and suddenly there is a subject worthy of these would-be Orwells’ talents. Why squander such a moment with on-the-one-hand-on-the-other equivocations? Better, surely, to light another cigarette, reach for the Remington portable, and fire off a thousand words of antifascist denunciation in the spirit of Eric Blair.

New York Review of Books (via someone in my twitter stream)