Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the
North-South Peace Agreement
Ted Dagne
Specialist in African Affairs
April 8, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33574
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Summary
Sudan, geographically the largest country in Africa, has been ravaged by civil war intermittently
for four decades. More than 2 million people have died in Southern Sudan over the past two
decades due to war-related causes and famine, and millions have been displaced from their
homes. There were many failed attempts to end the civil war in Southern Sudan. In July 2002, the
Sudan government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) signed a peace
framework agreement in Kenya. On May 26, 2004, the government of Sudan and the SPLM
signed three protocols on Power Sharing, on the Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile, and on
the long disputed Abyei area. The signing of these protocols resolved all outstanding issues
between the parties. On June 5, 2004, the parties signed “the Nairobi Declaration on the Final
Phase of Peace in the Sudan.” On January 9, 2005, the government of Sudan and the SPLM
signed the final peace agreement at a ceremony held in Nairobi, Kenya. In April 2010, Sudan held
national and regional elections. In January 2011, South Sudan held a referendum to decide on
unity or independence. Abyei was also expected to hold a referendum in January 2011 to decide
whether to retain the current special administrative status or to be part of South Sudan. The Abyei
referendum did not take place. In the Southern referendum, 98.8% voted for independence and
1.17% for unity.
The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel groups emerged to challenge the
National Congress Party (NCP) government in Darfur. The crisis in Darfur in western Sudan has
led to a major humanitarian disaster, with an estimated 1.9 million people displaced, more than
240,000 people forced into neighboring Chad, and an estimated 450,000 people killed. In July
2004, the House and Senate declared the atrocities in Darfur genocide, and the Bush
Administration reached the same conclusion in September 2004. On May 4, 2006, the
Government of National Unity and the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) signed the
Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) after almost two years of negotiations. In December 2010, the
government of Sudan began a major military offensive against the SLM.
In July 2007, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1769, authorizing the deployment of a
robust peacekeeping force to Darfur. The resolution calls for the deployment of 26,000
peacekeeping troops to Darfur. The resolution authorizes the United Nations African Union
Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) to take all necessary measures to protect its personnel and
humanitarian workers. As of August 2010, UNAMID deployed a total of 22,007 peacekeeping
personnel. As of August 2010, 73 peacekeeping personnel have been killed in Darfur. In July
2008, International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo accused
President Omar Bashir of Sudan of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes and asked
ICC judges to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir. On March 4, 2009, the ICC Pre-Trial
Chamber issued a warrant of arrest for President Bashir for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
In late October 2009, the Obama Administration announced a new Sudan policy. The new Sudan
policy focuses on three policy priorities: the crisis in Darfur, the implementation of the North-
South peace agreement, and counter-terrorism. The new policy links the lifting of sanctions and
incentives to verifiable progress on the ground. In mid-September, the Obama Administration
announced new policy initiatives on Sudan. The new policy update focuses on the
Administration’s active and expanded diplomatic engagement and relaxation of sanctions and
restrictions. On March 31, 2011, President Obama appointed Ambassador Princeton Lyman as
Special Envoy for Sudan.
Congressional Research Service
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
South Sudan and Abyei Referenda......................................................................................... 1
Unresolved CPA Issues ......................................................................................................... 1
Status of Abyei................................................................................................................ 1
Border Demarcation, Citizenship Rights, and Other Issues .............................................. 2
Preparation for Independence ................................................................................................ 2
The April 2010 Elections: Background .................................................................................. 2
International And Local Election Observers........................................................................... 3
National Presidential Elections Results.................................................................................. 3
South Sudan Presidential Elections Result ............................................................................. 4
U.S. Policy Toward Sudan: Background ...................................................................................... 4
The Obama Administration and U.S.-Sudan Relations ................................................................. 5
Views about the October 2009 Policy .................................................................................... 6
Recent Policy Updates ................................................................................................................ 7
Government of South Sudan Weapons in Kenya .................................................................... 8
Humanitarian Conditions ...................................................................................................... 8
U.S. Humanitarian Funding................................................................................................... 9
The International Criminal Court (ICC) and Sudan.................................................................... 10
Background .................................................................................................................. 11
The SPLM Position....................................................................................................... 12
The U.S. Response........................................................................................................ 12
Security Conditions in Darfur.................................................................................................... 13
Darfur: Current Status of Peace Talks .................................................................................. 13
United Nations Peacekeeping in Darfur............................................................................... 14
Developments in Southern Sudan.............................................................................................. 15
Status of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement Historical Context....................................... 17
The North-South Peace Agreement: Background................................................................. 18
Implementation of the CPA ................................................................................................. 18
The United States and the North-South Peace Agreement .................................................... 19
The Crisis in Darfur: Background.............................................................................................. 20
Darfur Developments: Accountability for Atrocities ............................................................ 21
The Janjaweed: Background................................................................................................ 23
The Darfur Peace Agreement and Status of Implementation................................................. 25
The African Union and the Crisis in Darfur ......................................................................... 25
China and Sudan ....................................................................................................................... 26
Figures
Figure 1. Map of Sudan............................................................................................................. 27
Congressional Research Service
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Tables
Table 1. 2010 National Presidential Election Results ................................................................... 4
Table 2. 2010 South Sudan Presidential Election Results ............................................................. 4
Table 3. U.S. Bilateral Assistance to Sudan................................................................................ 10
Appendixes
Appendix A. Executive Order: Blocking Property of and Prohibiting Transactions with
the Government of Sudan....................................................................................................... 28
Appendix B. Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons in Connection with the
Conflict in Sudan’s Darfur Region.......................................................................................... 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Recent Developments
South Sudan and Abyei Referenda
In January 2011, South Sudan held a peaceful and transparent referendum on Southern secession
or unity, as called for in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).1 An estimated 3.9 million
people were registered to vote, including those residing in other countries. An estimated 3.8
million people, or 97.5%, came out to vote in the referendum. According to the South Sudan
Referendum Commission (SSRC), 98.8% voted for secession, while 1.17% voted for unity. In
early February, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir officially accepted the result of the
referendum. The United States, the African Union, the European Union, the United Nations and
others endorsed the result. On July 9, 2011, South Sudan will officially declare independence and
the new country reportedly will be named the Republic of Southern Sudan.
Abyei was also expected to hold a referendum, on January 9, 2011, to decide whether to retain its
current special administrative status or to be part of Southern Sudan. However, the referendum
did not take place, in large part due to the government of Sudan’s rejection of agreements on
Abyei. In late December 2009, the Sudan National Assembly passed the South Sudan and Abyei
Referendum Act. However, the Abyei Commission was never established and residents of Abyei
were not registered to vote. In February and early March 2011, government forces and their allies
attacked several villages around Abyei and many residents fled the town of Abyei in early March
2011. On March 3, 2011, the State Department, in a press release, condemned the violence in
Abyei.
Unresolved CPA Issues
Status of Abyei
Over the past several months the African Union High Level Implementation Panel, chaired by
former South African president Thabo Mbeki, has been mediating on Abyei and other post-
referendum issues. In early December 2010, the Panel presented the parties six options to
consider on Abyei. Several of the options were seen by the parties as unacceptable. The Bashir
government favors the option that divides Abyei into two. The SPLM rejected that option,
arguing that the South has made several territorial concessions over the past two years. Another
proposed option was the return of Abyei to South Sudan and to provide a number of concessions
to the north, including 30% representation in parliament and in the executive.
Is an all-out war between the North and South over Abyei possible? Although some of the senior
political leaders and military commanders in the South come from the Abyei region, it does not
appear that war over Abyei is inevitable. It is possible, however, that the Southern army may be
dragged into a limited conflict over Abyei. The ruling party in Khartoum has accepted the
referendum results but has hardened its position on Abyei. The South is inclined to find a solution
Abyei short of war.2 Another potential trigger for a conflict is if proxies of the government begin
1 The author spent one week in Southern Sudan during the referendum.
2 Author interview with President Salva Kiir and other senior officials and military officers, January 2011.
Congressional Research Service
1
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
to target southerners in the North and Abyei. The government of South Sudan and its army may
not be able to control some units and the population in such scenario.
Border Demarcation, Citizenship Rights, and Other Issues
While important progress has been made, the North-South border demarcation is not fully
resolved. The parties have made some progress on citizenship rights, although there is no formal
agreement on this issue as of March 2011. The government of South Sudan (GOSS) has called for
debt forgiveness for Sudan, but the parties have not reached agreement on what percentage, if
any, of the debt the GOSS will be responsible for. Other unresolved issues include currency,
security arrangements, and use of Sudanese ports and the Sudan pipeline for the export of oil. The
parties are scheduled to meet in March to discuss these issues.
Preparation for Independence
The government of South Sudan (GOSS) has been actively engaged on a wide range of issues in
preparation for independence. The GOSS is expected to declare independence on July 9, 2011.
The ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) Political Bureau decided in February
2011 that the new country will be named the Republic of Southern Sudan, created a
Constitutional Review Commission, and announced that an inclusive new government will be
established in July 2011. New elections are not expected to take place, as Southern Sudan held
presidential, parliamentary, and regional elections in April 2010. As part of the government’s
reconciliation efforts, the SPLM invited opposition and armed groups to talks and reached
agreement with most of those present. However, it is likely that political infighting with the ruling
party may develop after independence. The GOSS is also assisting returning refugees and
internally displaced persons, and in January 2011, President Salva Kiir assured Sudanese
nationals from the north that they can stay in Southern Sudan as long as they wish.
The April 2010 Elections: Background
In April 2010, Sudan held national and regional elections as called for in the CPA. In January
2010, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) nominated Yasir Arman as its
presidential candidate to run against President Omar Bashir, the ruling National Congress Party
(NCP) candidate. Former Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi was also declared a candidate for
president by his Umma party, despite reservations expressed about the fairness of the electoral
process. There were a total of 12 presidential candidates. The NCP endorsed First Vice President
Salva Kiir for South Sudan presidency.
The United States provided more than $100 million in support of the elections. In a joint
statement, Secretary of State Clinton, Norwegian Foreign Minster Jonas Store, and United
Kingdom Foreign Secretary David Miliband stated that “irrespective of the outcome of elections,
it is essential that work continues and is accelerated to meet remaining CPA deadlines.”
In South Sudan, President Salva Kiir was challenged in the presidential elections by former
foreign minister Lam Akol. In the governor races, several candidates from different political
parties competed in each state. Members of the ruling SPLM, who disagreed with the candidate
selection process, ran as independents. South Sudanese also voted for the State and South Sudan
Assemblies.
Congressional Research Service
2
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
In late March 2010, the SPLM withdrew its candidate from the presidential elections and rejected
participation in elections in Darfur. Following the announcement by the SPLM, almost all of the
other presidential candidates decided to boycott the presidential election as well as participation
in regional and national elections. These parties asserted that the elections were rigged. According
to Sudanese electoral law, candidates must withdraw from the elections 45 days before the
election date. Since the parties withdrew less than two weeks before the elections, the candidates’
names were on the ballots and people reportedly voted for these candidates.
There were 72 political parties registered to compete in the elections, although a majority of these
parties are fairly new. There were an estimated 16,502 polling stations, including 5,764 in
Southern Sudan. The ruling National Congress Party had candidates competing in all 10 Southern
Sudan states, while the elections were largely peaceful, there were several violent incidents, some
unrelated to the elections. In one particular case, a number civilians and an NCP member were
reportedly killed by an SPLA soldier. According to South Sudan government officials, “a member
of the NCP committed adultery with the wife of a soldier.” The solider reportedly killed the NCP
member and his wife, and later killed himself.
International And Local Election Observers
The elections were monitored by many local and international observers, including the Carter
Center, the African Union, the European Union, and many local observers. In a preliminary
statement, the Carter Center observer team stated that “the elections will fall short of meeting
international standards and Sudan’s obligations for genuine elections in many respects.
Nonetheless, the elections are important as a key benchmark in the CPA and because of the
increased political and civic participation that has occurred over the last months. Ultimately, the
success of the elections will depend on whether Sudanese leaders take Action to promote lasting
democratic transformation.” The EU expressed similar concerns.
The elections in South Sudan were largely peaceful and transparent, although there were a
number of problems, including delays, missing names, and the delivery of ballots to the wrong
polling stations. The elections, however, were competitive. In a number of governor races, there
were several parties challenging SPLM candidates.
National Presidential Elections Results3
An estimated 10.1 million people voted in the national presidential elections. The results, despite
the withdrawal of almost all of the presidential candidates, with the exception of President Bashir,
suggest that if some of these candidates had stayed in the race, the overall results would have
been different.
3 Sudan National Electoral Commission.
Congressional Research Service
3
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Table 1. 2010 National Presidential Election Results
Candidate
Party Affiliation
Vote Results
Omar Hassan Al-Bashir
National Congress Party
68.2% (6.9 million)
Yasir Arman
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement
21.6% (2.1 million)
Abdul ah Deng Nhial
Popular Congress Party
3.9% (396,139)
Hatim Al-Sir
Democratic Unionist Party
1.9% (195,668)
Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi
Umma Party
.96% (96,868)
Kamil Idriss
Independent
.76% (77,132)
Mahmood Ahmed Jeha
Independent
.71% (71,708)
Mubarak Al-Fadil
Umma Reform and Renewal Party
.49% (49,402)
Munir Sheikh El-Din Jal ab
New National Democratic Party
.40% (40,277)
Abdel Aziz Khalid
Sudanese National Alliance
.34% (34,592)
Fatima Abdel-Mahmood
Sudanese Socialist Democratic Union
.30% (30,562)
Mohamed Ibrahim Nugud
Communist Party
.26% (26,442)
South Sudan Presidential Elections Result
An estimated 2.8 million valid votes were cast in the South Sudan presidential elections.
Table 2. 2010 South Sudan Presidential Election Results
Candidate
Party Affiliation
Vote Results
Salva Kiir
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement 92.9% (2.6 million)
(SPLM)
Lam Akol
SPLM for Democratic Change
7% (197,217)
U.S. Policy Toward Sudan: Background4
U.S.-Sudanese relations have been turbulent over the past several decades. In 1967, Sudan broke
diplomatic relations with the United States because of American support for Israel in the Arab-
Israeli War. In 1973, the U.S. Ambassador and Deputy Chief of Mission were assassinated in
Khartoum by members of the Palestinian Black September group, who were tried and sentenced
to life imprisonment, although then-President Gaffer Nimeri commuted the sentences and the
United States recalled its ambassador. In the mid-1970s, relations began to improve between
Sudan and the United States. However, relations were again strained when the democratically
elected civilian government was ousted from power in 1989 by a military junta led by current
4 For more on a wide range of issues on Sudan, please see CRS Report RL33574, Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and
Status of the North-South Peace Agreement, by Ted Dagne.
Congressional Research Service
4
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
President Omar Al Bashir. Since 1989, the United States has maintained multiple sanctions
against the Bashir government because of human rights concerns and Sudan’s support for
international terrorism.
In the late 1990s, the United States became actively engaged in efforts to bring an end to Sudan’s
North-South conflict. Successive U.S. Administrations played key roles in the North-South peace
process, while pressing for a resolution of the Darfur crisis in Western Sudan. Throughout the
Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD)-sponsored talks, the Bush
Administration engaged the parties at the highest levels, reportedly including calls by President
Bush to the principals at critical times during the negotiations, and frequent visits by senior State
Department officials to Kenya, where the talks were being conducted. President Bush’s former
Special Envoy, John Danforth, also made several trips to the region to encourage the parties to
finalize an agreement. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was actively engaged in the peace
process and traveled to Kenya to encourage the parties, according to U.S. officials and Sudanese
sources. U.S. financial support for the peace process and technical assistance during the talks
were considered by the parties and the mediators as critical, according to U.S. officials. American
interventions at critical times during the negotiations helped break a number of stalemates,
including during security arrangement talks and the three disputed areas of Nuba, Southern Blue
Nile, and Abyei. Sustained U.S. pressure on the government of Sudan was a factor in securing the
2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The Bush Administration, while maintaining U.S.
bilateral sanctions, also engaged the government in critical dialogue and offered the
normalization of bilateral relations as an incentive for the resolution of the Darfur crisis and
settlement of the North-South conflict, according to U.S. officials and Sudanese sources.
The Obama Administration and U.S.-Sudan
Relations
On March 31, 2011, President Obama appointed Ambassador Princeton Lyman as Special Envoy
for Sudan. In late October 2009, the Obama Administration announced a new policy toward
Sudan. The policy focuses on three priorities: an end to the conflict in Darfur; implementation of
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA); and ensuring Sudan does not become a safe haven
for international terrorist groups. Strategic Objective I calls for the protection of civilians, a
negotiated settlement to the conflict in Darfur, improving humanitarian conditions, accountability
and justice, and an end to violent conflicts inside Sudan and with its neighbors. Strategic
Objective II focuses on implementation of the CPA; U.S. assistance to promote governance and
transparency in South Sudan; strengthening international engagement; defusing tension and
providing assistance to Abyei, Southern Blue Nile, and Nuba; and assisting the parties in
developing plans to deal with the post-2011 political, economic, and other emerging issues.
Strategic Objective III seeks to prevent terrorists from having a safe haven in Sudan and ensure
cooperation on counter-terrorism.
The policy clarifies a number of issues and affirms the conflict in Darfur as genocide. In June
2009, then-Special Envoy Scott Gration characterized conditions in Darfur as “the remnants of
genocide.” According to press reports, he further stated that “the level of violence that we’re
seeing right now is primarily between rebel groups, the Sudanese government and some violence
between Chad and Sudan.” The new policy states that the United States’ primary objective in
Darfur is “a definitive end to conflict, gross human rights abuses, and genocide in Darfur.” The
policy also asserts that cooperation on counter-terrorism without verifiable progress on other
Congressional Research Service
5
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
issues will not lead to a normalization of relations. The policy document states that “Sudanese
support for counterterrorism objectives is valued, but cannot be used as a bargaining chip to
evade responsibilities in Darfur or in implementing the CPA.”5 The Obama Administration,
according to the policy document, will enhance U.S. assistance to South Sudan and help prepare
the country for a possible two-state outcome should the Southern Sudanese decide to vote for
independence in the 2011 referendum.
The policy seeks to deal with a wide range of issues, as outlined in Strategic Objective II:
The United States will work with international partners to encourage the parties to
implement the necessary legislation and planning for the 2010 elections and the 2011
referendum. Among other issues, the United States will work with international partners to:
(1) provide assistance for census resolution, voter registration and education, political party
assistance, polling place administration, balloting mechanics, and ensuring international and
local domestic election and referenda monitoring; and (2) encourage the parties to enact the
necessary legal reforms to create an environment more conducive to a credible election
process and referendum, including through the enactment of a credible referendum law. The
United States will assist the parties in resolving census and referendum disputes in
accordance with the CPA. In addition, the United States will support efforts to push for the
timely and transparent demarcation of the North-South border through the provision of
technical expertise and by supporting U.N. efforts to professionalize and equip the Joint
Integrated Units (JIUs) responsible for policing disputed areas.
In order to strengthen governance capacity and transparency, the Obama Administration plans to
provide assistance to South Sudan:
The United States will work to improve security for the southern Sudanese people by
supporting DDR and conflict prevention initiatives and strengthening the capacity of the
security sector and criminal justice system. The United States will also work to improve
economic conditions and outcomes. The United States will provide technical advisors to vital
ministries and will work to strengthen entities such as the U.N. Development Program’s
Local Government Reform Program (LGRP). The United States will work with international
partners to implement the World Bank Multi-Donor Trust Fund South Strategy in a timely
manner and to improve access to capital, particularly micro financing, for agricultural
enterprises and local private sector ventures. The United States will support efforts and
initiatives that assist in increasing trade between Sudan and its neighbors. Transparency in
fiscal expenditures will be critical to attracting investment, and the United States will support
World Bank anticorruption efforts in Southern Sudan.
Views about the October 2009 Policy
In October 2009, many Sudan watchers, Members of Congress, and Sudan advocacy groups
expressed support for the new policy, although some linked their support to full implementation
of the new policy. Some of these initial supporters are now critical of the Administration’s policy
toward Sudan. In mid-February 2010, 35 Sudan advocacy groups, in a letter to President Obama,
called for the firing of Special Envoy Scott Gration. These groups accused Special Envoy Gration
of being too conciliatory to the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and too critical of other
groups. At the African Union Summit in Ethiopia in early 2010, President Yoweri Museveni of
Uganda expressed a similar concern about Special Envoy Gration.
5 Sudan: A Critical Moment, A Comprehensive Approach, 19 October 2009.
Congressional Research Service
6
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Since his appointment as an Envoy, General Gration met with a wide range of people, including
southerners, advocacy groups, Darfur rebel groups, and regional officials. The ruling NCP,
however, has had more high-level official meetings in Washington, DC, than at any time in a
decade. In late 2009 and early 2010, there were three delegations led by the NCP members to the
United States. Members of the delegation had meetings at the Treasury Department to discuss
U.S. sanctions issues. A Sudanese delegation that came to the United States in late January 2010
included executives from the Kenana company (sugar) and Sudan Airways. The delegation, in
addition to official meetings, went to visit the P.L. Thomas company (a gum arabic company) in
Morristown, NJ. The delegation also held a meeting in Washington, DC, with Valmont Irrigation
company executives from Valley, NE, to discuss farm issues, according to Sudanese sources.
Recent Policy Updates
In mid-September, the Obama Administration announced new policy initiatives on Sudan.6 The
new policy update focuses on the Administration’s active and expanded diplomatic engagement
and relaxation of sanctions and restrictions. The policy update states that:
During this critical period, the Obama Administration is intensifying its work to implement
its strategy by: elevating diplomatic efforts; working with other nations, the United Nations,
and other regional and international organizations to help prepare for the referenda; making
significant investments on the ground to help prepare for what happens after the referenda,
and presenting the parties concrete steps that the United States will take contingent on
concrete achievements on the ground.7
The Obama Administration announced in mid-September that restrictions on licensing regulations
in the agricultural sector, spare parts for trains, and technology-related restrictions have been
removed. In addition, the Administration announced that the United States would normalize
relations, provide assistance in debt relief, remove Sudan from the State Sponsors of Terrorism
designation, support access to multilateral and bilateral assistance, and remove legislative and
executive sanctions, provided that a comprehensive peace agreement in Darfur is secured, Sudan
ends support to international terrorism, security is improved on the ground, and unfettered
humanitarian access and “efforts to achieve accountability, justice and reconciliation” are
supported by the government of Sudan. The executive branch cannot remove legislative sanctions
without the support and action of Congress.
The reaction from the government of Sudan has been negative. Sudanese Presidential Adviser
Ghazi Salahuddin said that "we have expressed our stance towards such offers earlier. We reject
in principle the issue of incentives and pressures. This is an unacceptable matter."8 Officials of the
government of Southern Sudan expressed concern that to providing incentives to the Bashir
government in light of their delays in the implementation of and rejections of some provisions of
the CPA could be seen as a reward for intransigence. These officials argue that the NCP has
rejected several efforts in setting up the Abyei Referendum Commission. Obama Administration
officials insist that the removal of sanctions and normalization of relations are dependent on a
6 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147103.htm.
7 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147103.htm.
8 http://en.ce.cn/World/Africa/201009/16/t20100916_21822444.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
7
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
number of conditions. Some Members of Congress are skeptical about the incentive package,
while welcoming the active and expanded diplomatic engagement.
The Obama Administration has significantly increased the number of U.S. officials in Sudan. In
Juba, South Sudan, the Administration appointed a retired ambassador at the U.S. Consulate and
doubled the U.S. official presence. The Administration also appointed former Ambassador
Princeton Lyman as the head of the U.S. Negotiations Support Unit in Sudan. Senior
Administration officials have also intensified their engagement in the Sudan policy. In June, Vice
President Joseph Biden visited Kenya and met with officials of the government of Southern
Sudan. In September, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor General
James Jones spoke to President Salva Kiir by phone. On September 24, President Barack Obama
is expected to participate at a conference organized by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in
New York City.
Government of South Sudan Weapons in Kenya
The government of South Sudan began to purchase weapon systems over two years ago to replace
old tanks and other equipment. Over the past two years, there were several shipments of weapons
to South Sudan. In October 2008, Somali pirates hijacked a Ukrainian ship loaded with several
dozen tanks headed for Kenya, although the final destination was South Sudan. In 2009, the
pirates freed the ship, and in late 2009 the governments of South Sudan and Kenya loaded the
tanks on a train for South Sudan. A few days later, the State Department threatened the
government of Kenya with sanctions if it delivered the tanks to South Sudan. State Department
officials promised that they will find ways to resolve the issue and get the tanks to South Sudan.
South Sudanese and Kenyan officials were informed by U.S. officials in June 2010 that the issue
had been resolved and the tanks could be delivered. But U.S. officials reportedly told Kenyan
officials that the tanks should not be delivered until July 2011.
According to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the SPLM has the legal right to buy
weapons and receive assistance from foreign governments to rebuild its defense forces. The
Bashir government uses funds from the national treasury to buy weapons from outside and also
manufactures heavy weapons inside Sudan, including tanks. The United States government is
providing security assistance to South Sudan. The government of South Sudan has asked the
United States repeatedly for an air defense system. President Bush reportedly informed First Vice
President Salva Kiir in late 2008 that he approved his request for an air defense system and that
he was unaware why it has not been delivered. Bush Administration officials then said that they
were hoping to first train and equip the Southern military.
Humanitarian Conditions9
Humanitarian conditions in South Sudan have worsened in the past several months, according to
U.S. and South Sudanese officials. According to the World Food Program, “the number of people
in Southern Sudan in need of food assistance has more than quadrupled from 1 million in 2009 to
4.3 million in 2010.” Since January 2009, more than 440,000 people have been displaced and an
estimated 450 civilians killed due to violence in South Sudan. Meanwhile, an estimated 100,000
9 See U.N. maps and charts at the end of the report for more details.
Congressional Research Service
8
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
displaced people and refugees have returned in the first six months of 2010, according to United
Nations officials.
Humanitarian conditions in Darfur, while stable in some areas, have worsened in other areas due
to renewed fighting. According to a report by the U.N. Secretary General, “humanitarian access
was uneven and, in some cases, restricted owing to renewed fighting in eastern Jebel Marra and
Jebel Moon.”10 In some areas there are no health services available and only limited services in
water and sanitation.
U.S. Humanitarian Funding
The United States continues to provide significant humanitarian assistance to Darfur and to
Darfur refugees in Chad. Since 2005, the United States has provided an estimated $6 billion. In
FY2009, the United States had provided $936.9 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan and
eastern Chad.11 In FY2010, the United States provided $430.6 million in humanitarian assistance
in fiscal year 2010. As of April 2011, the United States has provided $121.9 million in FY2011.
10 http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/sgrep10.htm.
11 http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/countries/sudan/template/fs_sr/
sudan_ce_sr02_12-20-2007.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Table 3. U.S. Bilateral Assistance to Sudan
($ in thousands)
FY2011
FY2012
FY2008 Actual FY2009 Actual FY2010 Actual
Request
Request
Total
906,396 924,140 705,021 439,979 518,257
Development
127,721 25,550 1,300
Assistance
Economic
145,876 263,550 296,034 270,210 335,650
Support Fund
Global Health
3,245 6,327 7,036 7,036 12,397
and Child
Survival (State)
Global Health &
17,488 23,185 30,010 32,083 38,510
Childe Survival
(USAID)
International
349 681 793 800 800
Military
Education and
Training
Int. Narcotics
23,578 15,400 16,000 53,950 37,000
Control and Law
Enforcement
Non-
4,400 4,000 3,900 3,900 3,900
proliferation,
Anti-terrorism,
Demining and
Related
Programs
Peacekeeping
70,822 38,000 44,000 42,000 60,000
Operations
Food for Peace
512,917
547,447
305,948
30,000
30,000
Source: State Department FY2012 International Affairs Budget Request.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) and Sudan
In May 2010, the ICC pre-trial chamber recommended to the United Nations Security Council to
take appropriate measures against Sudan since the government of Sudan has failed to cooperate in
handing over two individuals wanted by the ICC. In February 2010, the appeals judges for the
ICC reversed a March 2009 ruling by the pre-trial chamber to remove the genocide charges
against Bashir. This decision provides another opportunity for the Special Prosecutor to make his
case for the genocide charge. The Bashir government condemned the decision by the ICC.
On March 4, 2009, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber issued a warrant of arrest for President Bashir for
war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is the first warrant of arrest issued for a sitting head
of state. According to the Pre-Trial judges, President Bashir intentionally directed attacks “against
an important part of the civilian population of Darfur.” President Bashir is accused of five counts
of crimes against humanity (murder, rape, torture, extermination, and forceful transfer of civilian
population) and two counts of war crimes (killing and pillaging). The Pre-Trial Chamber stated
Congressional Research Service
10
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
that President Bashir “played a role that went beyond coordinating the implementation of the
common plan and was in full control of all branches of the apparatus of the State of Sudan,
including the Sudanese Armed Forces and their allied Janjaweed Militia, the Sudanese Police
Force, the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS).”12
The government of Sudan condemned the ICC decision and expelled 13 non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) working in Darfur. President Bashir accused these NGOs of collaborating
with the ICC. The government of Sudan and the United Nations agreed to send a Joint Technical
mission to assess humanitarian conditions in Darfur. Meanwhile, the NCP and the SPLM formed
a Crisis Committee to address the ICC crisis and other issues. The Obama Administration stated
that “the United States is strongly committed to the pursuit of peace in Sudan and believes those
who have committed atrocities should be held accountable.” The Administration also condemned
the expulsions of the NGOs and warned that this measure “seriously threatens the lives and well-
being of displaced populations.”13 In April 2009, U.S. Special Envoy J. Scott Gration reached an
agreement with the National Congress Party leaders on the expulsions of the NGOs. The
agreement does not call for the return of the expelled NGOs, but provides additional authority to
the government of Sudan to manage and control NGO activities.
The African Union, the Arab League, China, and a number of other countries called for a
deferment of the ICC process against President Bashir. In a press statement, the African Union
Peace and Security Council stated that “despite the risks posed by the ongoing ICC process to the
search for lasting peace and stability in the Sudan and in the region, the United Nations Security
Council has failed to consider with the required attention the request made by the AU to
implement the provisions of article 16 of the ICC Statute.” The African Union appointed former
South African President Thabo Mbeki to chair a high-level panel to make recommendations on
the most effective way to deal with impunity, accountability, and reconciliation in Sudan. In July
2009, the African Union in a resolution stated that member states will not cooperate with the ICC.
In a statement, the AU stated that “the AU member states shall not co-operate relating to
immunities for the arrest and surrender of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to the ICC.”
Background
In July 2008, the ICC Chief Prosecutor accused President Bashir of Sudan of genocide, crimes
against humanity, and war crimes. The Prosecutor asked ICC judges to issue an arrest warrant for
President Bashir. In late September 2008, the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, the African
Union Commission Chairman, Jean Ping, ICC Special Prosecutor, and other government officials
met in New York to discuss the status of the ICC case against President Bashir. Special Prosecutor
Moreno-Ocampo stated that “We presented a solid case. The evidence shows that crimes against
Darfurians continue today. President al-Bashir has complete control of his forces, and they are
raping women today, they are promoting conditions in the camps to destroy complete
communities and they are still bombing schools.” Ocampo added that “the judges will decide.
Those sought by the court have to face justice. It is an immense challenge for the political leaders
of the world. They have to protect the victims and ensure the respect for the court’s decisions.”14
12 http://www.icc-cpi.int.
13 Department of State Press Release, March 4, 2009.
14 United Nations News Wire, September 22, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
11
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
The government of Sudan condemned the ICC action, while the African Union asked for a
deferment of the ICC case against Bashir. However, the then-chairman of the African Union,
President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, stated at the United Nations in September that “when we
talk about deferment, we should not in any way be perceived as condoning impunity. Justice is a
matter of essence.” President Museveni of Uganda stated that “you cannot stand up and say:
‘Don’t touch Bashir because he is a president.’ Suppose he made those mistakes. If you take that
position, you will be ignoring the right of the victims.”15 Other African leaders also expressed
similar views concerning the ICC case against Bashir.
The SPLM Position
In 2008, the SPLM issued a press release stating that “the solution to the crisis is for the
Government of National Unity to forge an understanding with the international community and to
co-operate with ICC on the legal processes.” Vice President Salva Kiir was appointed to chair a
“Crisis Committee” to deal with the ICC process and other emerging issues. Foreign Minister
Deng Alore of Sudan informed President Bashir that he will not defend him at the United Nations
or lobby against the ICC case. This led to a decision by Bashir to appoint Vice President Osman
Ali Taha to lead a 50-person delegation to the United Nations in September 2008. The Bashir
government is currently actively engaged in a lobbying campaign against the ICC. Senior
government officials, who in the past ignored or harassed the international press, are now giving
the international media access.
In early February 2009, the SPLM Political Bureau passed a resolution to respond to the ICC
investigation. The SPLM leadership created a Committee on the ICC, whose membership include
senior SPLM members, including the chairman of the SPLM, Salva Kiir, Sudan Foreign Minister
Deng Alore, SPLA Affairs Minister Nhial Deng, and several other senior SPLM leaders. The
committee is tasked with reaching out to relevant actors in Sudan, the region, and the
international community to respond to the on-going crisis in Darfur. The committee was tasked to
come up with recommendations on the ICC investigation, the crisis in Darfur, and reconciliation
efforts. On the other hand, the SPLM leadership has put in place a contingency plan in case of
emergency.
The U.S. Response
The Bush Administration’s then-Special Envoy to Sudan, Richard Williamson, at a briefing
before the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom in late September 2008, stated that “we
believe strongly that there should be no impunity for the atrocities committed in Darfur. The
people of Darfur have suffered for far too long.” He also stated that the United States will veto
any resolution for deferment under Article 16 of the Rome Statute. Then-Secretary of State Rice
reportedly informed Vice President Taha at a meeting in New York that the U.S. will veto a
resolution on deferment. The Obama Administration is also opposed to a deferral of the ICC case
against President Bashir. In early February 2009, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan
Rice told the Washington Post that “it is our view that we support the ICC investigation and the
prosecution of war crimes in Sudan, and we see no reason for an article 16 deferral.”16
Meanwhile, the African Union at its Summit in January 2009, once again, urged deferral of the
15 The Sudan Tribune. “Ugandan President Does Not Condemn the ICC”, August 3, 2008.
16 The Washington Post. “Sudan Retains Clout While Charges Loom”, February 9, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
12
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
ICC investigation. The current U.S. Sudan policy states that “in addition to supporting
international efforts to bring those responsible for genocide and war crimes in Darfur to justice,
the United States will work with Darfuri civil society to support locally owned accountability and
reconciliation mechanisms that can make peace more sustainable.”
Security Conditions in Darfur
In early 2010, security conditions in Darfur began to deteriorate, despite some progress in
negotiations between the government of Sudan and some rebel groups. In April and May, the
Sudanese army attacked Jebel Marra and later captured it from JEM forces. According to an April
2010 report by the U.N. Secretary General, “UNAMID was the target of a number of deliberate
attacks. On February 16, 2010, seven personnel of the Pakistani formed police unit were
injured—three of them critically—during an attack on its patrol to the El Sereif camp for the
displaced.”17 In January 2009, the forces of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) reportedly
attacked the town of Muhajeria in South Darfur. The town and the surrounding areas were under
the control of another Darfur rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)-Minawi faction.
JEM officials initially denied that they attacked the area, claiming that they were responding to
attacks by SLA and government forces. The SLA pulled its forces out, while JEM forces took
control. In late January and early February, Sudan government forces attacked JEM, forcing JEM
to pull out of the town. The Obama Administration condemned the government of Sudan’s
actions, while United Nations officials rejected the government of Sudan’s demand to pull U.N.
peacekeepers out of Muhajeria.
In late August 2008, government forces entered the Kalma Internally Displaced Persons (IDP)
camp in South Darfur and killed over 30 civilians and wounded many more. Government forces
reportedly used heavy weapons during the attack. Civilians lost legs, arms, and other body parts,
according to photographs of the wounded in the Kalma camp. During the same period,
government forces intensified their ground and air attacks against rebel forces, although the
casualties were largely civilians. In July 2008, seven United Nations African Union Mission in
Darfur (UNAMID) peacekeepers were killed and over a dozen wounded in an attack by heavily
armed pro-government militia. Another peacekeeper was killed a few days later, bringing the total
casualties to 25.
Darfur: Current Status of Peace Talks
In February 2010, the government of Sudan and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) signed
a framework agreement. The parties agreed in principle to a cease-fire, the release of prisoners of
war, the participation of JEM in government, and compensation to Darfur refugees and displaced
people. The peace initiative was brokered by the government of Qatar, the United
Nations/African Union Special Envoys, and the governments of Chad and Eritrea. A number of
other Darfur factions have rejected the agreement between JEM and the government of Sudan.
Several other groups are currently engaged in separate talks with the government. Meanwhile, in
late February, government forces launched a major offensive against one of the major rebel
groups in the Jebel Marra area of Darfur. JEM and several other Darfur groups have condemned
the attack, while the United States expressed concern about the offensive. In May 2010, JEM
17 http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/sgrep10.htm.
Congressional Research Service
13
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
withdrew from the Doha talks after the capture of Jebel Marra. In late May 2010, the leader of
JEM, Khalid Ibrahim, was denied passage by Chadian authorities to go to JEM-controlled areas
in Darfur. He reportedly returned to Libya.
United Nations Peacekeeping in Darfur
On July 31, 2007, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the United
Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1769. The resolution called for the deployment of a
hybrid United Nations-African Union force in Darfur (UNAMID). The U.N. was expected to
fully deploy 26,000 peacekeeping troops to Darfur by mid-2008. As of June 30, 2010, the United
Nations deployed 25,883 peacekeeping personnel to Darfur. As of August 2010, 66 peacekeeping
personnel have been killed in Darfur. In March 2008, the United States pledged $100 million to
train and equip African peacekeepers for deployment under UNAMID. In late 2008, the United
States helped transport equipment and personnel to Darfur. The resolution:
1. Reaffirms its commitment to stop the suffering in Darfur, and to work with the
government of Sudan toward this end.
2. Commends Sudan’s acceptance of a hybrid operation to be deployed in Darfur and
the ongoing efforts of the African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS.
3. Refers to the Addis Ababa Agreement that the hybrid operation be predominantly
comprised of African troops.
4. Expresses concern about ongoing attacks on civilians in Darfur and the security of
humanitarian aid workers in the region.
5. Welcomes the appointment of the AU-UN Joint Special Representative for Darfur,
Rodolphe Adada, and Force Commander, Martin Agwai.
6. Calls on all parties to facilitate the full deployment of Light and Heavy Support
Packages to AMIS and preparations for UNAMID within 30 days.
7. States that UNAMID shall establish an initial operational capability for its
headquarters by October 2007, in addition to the management and control structure of the
operation.
8. Decides that by October 2007, UNAMID shall assume command of all Light Support
and Heavy Support personnel as may be deployed by October.
9. States that by December 31, 2007 at the latest, UNAMID will have fully
implemented all of the elements of its mandate and will assume authority from AMIS.
10. Calls for a unity of command and control provided by the United Nations.
11. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities in Darfur.
12. States that UNAMID is authorized to take the necessary actions to protect its
personnel and humanitarian workers. The resolution also calls for the protection of
civilians, “without prejudice to the responsibilities of the government of Sudan.”
In late December 2007, UNAMID officially assumed command and control from the African
Union peacekeeping force. The government signed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with
the United Nations in February 2008. In January 2008, a UNAMID supply convoy was attacked
Congressional Research Service
14
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
by Sudanese government forces in West Darfur. The United Nations and the United States
condemned the attack.18 In January 2008, President Bashir appointed Musa Hilal, a leader of the
Janjaweed, as advisor to the minister of federal affairs. In April 2006, the United Nations Security
Council imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on Musa Hilal. Bush Administration officials
criticized the appointment of Hilal.19 President Bashir argued that Hilal is an influential leader in
Darfur and that his government does not accept the allegation against Hilal. The appointment of
Hilal is seen by observers as another obstacle to peace in the Darfur region.
Developments in Southern Sudan
In May 2008, government of Sudan forces destroyed the town of Abyei, displaced over 60,000
people, and killed over a dozen. Abyei town was largely burned, according to witnesses. In June
2008, the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) signed an
agreement on “defining and demarcating” the Abyei area. The parties agreed to refer the Abyei
dispute for arbitration. Many of the civilians displaced by the attacks in May remain in displaced
camps and the town of Abyei was largely empty as of mid-August 2008. However, by January
2009, an estimated 10,000 displaced people had returned, according to U.N. officials. United
Nations and government of South Sudan officials expect the number of returnees will increase in
the coming months.
An agreement reached in 2008 between the government of South Sudan (GOSS) and the National
Congress Party (NCP) on Abyei largely ended the tense situation between the two sides. The
agreement established an Interim Administration for Abyei, created a Special Fund for
development of the region, and provided for the redeployment of government and SPLA forces
out of Abyei. The parties agreed to deploy Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) and a police force. An
estimated 257 JIU forces have been deployed as of late 2008. In August 2008, the parties
appointed the chairman and deputy chairman of the executive, and in October 2008 members of
the Executive Committee and Abyei Council were appointed. In late 2008, the parties presented
their oral arguments before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and a final decision was made in
June 2009.
In October 2007, the government of Southern Sudan suspended the participation of its ministers,
state ministers, and presidential advisors from the Government of National Unity to protest
measures taken by the National Congress Party and to demand full implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) has
urged the Sudanese government to implement key provisions of the CPA and to consult the first
vice president on key issues. They complained that President Omar Bashir has been taking
important decisions with little or no consultation with the First Vice President since the signing of
the peace agreement in 2005. On Darfur, President Bashir has been waging war and deliberately
sidelining the SPLM on key decisions. For example, the Eastern Sudan Agreement was
negotiated and signed between the National Congress Party and the Eastern rebels without serious
consultation with the First Vice President. According to the CPA, “the President shall take
decisions with the consent of the First Vice President on declaration and termination of state of
emergency, declaration of war, appointments that the president is required to make according to
the peace agreement, summoning, adjourning, or proroguing the National Assembly.” A request
18 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jan/98954.htm.
19 http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvhevbfJOD4I9EAeZ5OxHyHtkPUw.
Congressional Research Service
15
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
by the first vice president to reshuffle southern ministers in the Government of National Unity
was held up for several months by President Bashir in large part due to Bashir’s opposition to the
proposed change of the foreign minister.
In October 2007, the SPLM leadership submitted a number of demands to President Bashir. In a
letter to President Bashir, First Vice President Salva Kiir wrote:20
At this critical juncture of the history of our country, the Sudanese people, the region and the
international community at large, do follow with concern the evolving situation in our
country. In particular, they follow closely with concern what both of us, and the parties we
lead, are doing to enhance and consolidate peace in our country. The Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) is the corner stone of that peace. It is with this spirit that I am addressing
you today on behalf of the SPLM, and on my own behalf as a partner in peace.
The SPLM was encouraged by the creation of bilateral permanent mechanisms for the
resolution of outstanding issues on CPA implementation as well as for the enhancement of
cooperation and partnership between our two parties. Despite the progress made on several
issue areas, critical flash points remain. Thereby giving rise to the impression that the
mechanisms we have created were mere vehicles for public relations exercises and not meant
to help the parties in resolving critical differences.
The above impression was reinforced by recent provocative actions emanating from
authorities within the Government of National Unity (GONU) of which we are part, indeed
the major partner to the NCP. The height of these provocations was the raids in Khartoum on
SPLM premises and the Mess of SPLA senior officers in the Joint Defense Board (JDB). The
JDB is the highest military organ created by the CPA and INC to oversee the smooth
implementation of Security Arrangements. Those indecorous acts were compounded by the
unrepentant reaction by their perpetrators to SPLM’s protest. The perpetrators include NCP
Ministers and officers in the law enforcement agencies who are duty-bound by the INC to
steer away of politics. It became clear to us, however, that the provocations reflected a
pattern of behavior intended to humiliate the SPLM. The SPLM, therefore, should not be
expected to take that behavior lightly. Indeed, the situation called for a pause and a deep
reflection on the way and spirit with which we are handling the implementing of CPA.
To that end, the SPLM Interim Political Bureau (IPB) met in Juba from October 4th—11th
2007 to assess and evaluate the status of CPA implementation and draw concrete actions for
the way forward. In that evaluation, the IPB identified CPA violations and enumerated
unacceptable deliberate actions demeaning to the SPLM and its leadership. I am enclosing
herewith copy of the IPB’s resolutions encompassing violations to the CPA as well as
actions to which the SPLM takes serious exception. In presenting these resolutions, I am
confident that you shall address, with wisdom and statesmanship, the serious issues raised
therein. Truly, those violations and actions constitute a major challenge to the sustenance of
peace and consolidation of unity in our country. On my part, I remain committed to the full
implementation of the CPA and I do not wish for a moment to contemplate the collapse of
the CPA, let alone take part in that collapse.
Furthermore, the IPB expressed deep concern with Your Excellency’s inaction on the
reshuffle of SPLM Ministers in GONU which, in the spirit of collegial decision-making, I
proposed. In doing that, I was exercising my constitutional rights and prerogatives as the
Chairman of the SPLM to effect the recommendations of my Party. In view of the perception
that this inaction amounts to an encroachment on the First Vice President’s constitutional
20 Government of Sudan source.
Congressional Research Service
16
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
powers, the IPB recalled all SPLM Presidential Advisors, Ministers and State Ministers in
GONU and they have been directed to stay away from their duties till considerable progress
is seen in addressing the issues raised in the attached resolutions. In order not to paralyze the
work of GoNU, I am again presenting to your Excellency our new list of ministerial changes
in GONU. I am confident that you shall address this matter together with other pressing
issues contained in the resolutions of IPB with due regard to the risks inherent in the present
stalemate. This stalemate, if left unresolved, may degenerate into a crisis which none of us
wants. It is our political duty and national obligation to avert actions that might endanger the
CPA. It is also our moral and constitutional responsibility to provide the necessary leadership
so that our country is enabled to enjoy peace, stability, democracy and unity based on the
free will of its people.
In response to these demands and unexpected developments, President Bashir reportedly accepted
a number of the government of South Sudan demands in late October, except those related to the
Abyei issue. According to senior SPLM officials, the acceptance of their demands by President
Bashir does not resolve the crisis. They would like to see a timeline and a roadmap for
implementation of their demands before they return to government. President Bashir accepted a
new list of ministers submitted by the first vice president, although he deleted the name of one
senior official who was appointed as a presidential adviser, according to Sudanese sources. In late
December 2007, the new ministers were sworn in to office. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
Lam Akol was replaced by Deng Alore, a senior member of the SPLM.
Status of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement Historical Context
In 1956, Sudan became the first independent country in sub-Saharan Africa, gaining
independence from Britain and Egypt. For almost four decades, the east African country, with a
population of 35 million people, has been the scene of intermittent conflict. An estimated 2
million people died over two decades from war-related causes and famine in Southern Sudan, and
millions more were displaced. The sources of the conflict were deeper and more complicated than
the claims of most political leaders and some observers. Religion was a major factor because of
the Islamic fundamentalist agenda of the current government, dominated by the mostly
Muslim/Arab north. Southerners, who are Christian and animist, reject the Islamization of the
country and favor a secular arrangement. Social and economic disparities were also major
contributing factors to the Sudanese conflict.
Former President Jaafer Nimeri’s abrogation in 1983 of the 1972 Addis Ababa agreement, which
had ended the first phase of the civil war in the south, is considered a major factor triggering the
civil war. The National Islamic Front (NIF) government, which ousted the democratically elected
civilian government in 1989, pursued the war in Southern Sudan with vigor. Previous
governments, both civilian and military, had rejected southern demands for autonomy and
equality. Northern political leaders for decades treated southerners as second-class citizens and
did not see the south as an integral part of the country.
Southern political leaders argue that under successive civilian and military governments, political
elites in the north have made only superficial attempts to address the grievances of the south,
reluctant to compromise the north’s dominant economic, political, and social status. Most
political leaders in the north, now in opposition to the current government, have said that
mistakes were made. But the political mood among southerners has sharply shifted in favor of
separation from the north.
Congressional Research Service
17
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
The North-South Peace Agreement: Background
On January 9, 2005, the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement
(SPLM), after two and half years of negotiations, signed the Sudan Comprehensive Peace
Agreement at a ceremony in Nairobi, Kenya. More than a dozen heads of state from Africa
attended the signing ceremony. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who led the U.S. delegation,
reportedly urged the government of Sudan and the SPLM to end the conflict in Darfur. The
signing of this agreement effectively ended the 21-year-old civil war and triggered a six-year
Interim Period. At the end of the Interim Period, southerners are to hold a referendum to decide
their political future. National, regional, and local elections are to take place during the second
half of the Interim Period.
On July 30, 2005, First Vice President and Chairman of the SPLM Dr. John Garang was killed in
a plane crash in Southern Sudan (discussed below). His death triggered violence between
government security forces and southerners in Khartoum and Juba. More than 100 people were
reported killed. The government of Sudan has established a committee to investigate the violence.
The crash was investigated by a team from Sudan, Uganda, Russia, United Nations, and the
United States. The final report was issued in April 2006. In early August 2005, the SPLM
Leadership Council appointed Salva Kiir as Chairman of the SPLM and First Vice President of
Sudan. Salva Kiir had served as Garang’s deputy after the SPLM split in 1991. He was officially
sworn in as First Vice President in the Government of National Unity (GNU) on August 11, 2005.
On August 31, 2005, the National Assembly was inaugurated. According to the CPA, the National
Congress Party was allocated 52% of the seats (234), 28% to the SPLM (126), and the remaining
20% for the northern and southern opposition groups.
In September 2005, after weeks of contentious negotiations, the SPLM and the National Congress
Party (NCP), formerly known as the National Islamic Front (NIF), agreed on a cabinet. At the
core of the dispute was the distribution of key economic ministerial portfolios. The NCP insisted
on keeping the Energy and Finance ministries, while the SPLM argued that each party should be
given one or the other. The SPLM ultimately gave up its demand and managed to secure eight
ministries, including Foreign Affairs, Cabinet Affairs, Labor, Transportation, Health, Education,
Humanitarian Affairs, and Trade. Several advisers were also appointed to the Presidency (the
Presidency consists of President Bashir, First Vice President Kiir, and Vice President Osman Ali
Taha), including two from the SPLM.
Implementation of the CPA
Implementation of the CPA by the Government of National Unity has been selective and at times
deliberately slow, according to United Nations officials and Sudan observers. President Bashir,
for example, rejected implementation of the Abyei Boundary Commission (ABC)
recommendations, and the formation of the Joint Integrated Units has been slow, although in 2008
important progress was made. The ABC was mandated to “define and demarcate” the area known
as the nine Ngok Dinka Chiefdoms transferred in 1905 to Kordofan in North Sudan. The ABC
was chaired by former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Donald Peterson, with active international
engagement. In July 2005, the ABC submitted its final report to the Presidency. According to the
CPA, “upon presentation of the final report, the Presidency shall take necessary action to put the
special administration status of Abyei Area into immediate effect.”
Congressional Research Service
18
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
The CPA faces serious challenges, despite the number of commissions created and decrees issued
by the Presidency to address issues related to the agreement. Government force redeployment
from Southern Sudan, as called for in the peace agreement, has been slow, especially in the oil
field regions of Southern Sudan. The SPLA completed redeployment of its forces from East
Sudan in 2006. The government of Sudan redeployed most of its forces as of December 2007,
although thousands of Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) remain in the oil region of South Sudan.
SAF has increased its forces in the Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile in violation of the
CPA. According to the CPA, forces in these two states were supposed to be at a level of peace
time. SPLA forces also had a presence in the Nuba and Southern Blue Nile regions. According to
senior SPLM officials, the SPLA will pull out of the area once the SAF reduces its presence and
the Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) are fully deployed. In early January 2008, the SPLA withdrew
some of its forces from Nuba.21 As of January 2009, an estimated 84.7% of the CPA authorized
JIU forces have been deployed.
A number of Commissions remain dysfunctional, although many of the Commissions have been
created by the government of Sudan. According to the January 2009 CPA Monitor, the National
Human Rights Commission, the Electoral Commission, the Land Commission, and several other
Commissions have been established. The Assessment and Evaluation Commission (AEC), which
was mandated under CPA to monitor implementation of the peace agreement, has created four
Working Groups to monitor implementation of the CPA, although the parties to the agreement
have not been actively engaged in the process. The parties have made some progress in the
implementation of the wealth-sharing and power-sharing provisions of the CPA, although work
on the north-south border is behind schedule. Failure to fully resolve the border issue is likely to
complicate the redeployment of forces and sharing of oil revenues, since a number of the oil
fields are located along the 1956 north-south border. In December 2009, the SPLM and the
National Congress Party reached agreement to resolve the north-south border issue and on oil-
related issues.22
The United States and the North-South Peace Agreement
The United States played a key role in the North-South peace process, while pressing for a
resolution of the Darfur crisis in Western Sudan. Throughout the Inter-Governmental Authority
for Development (IGAD)-sponsored talks, the Bush Administration engaged the parties at the
highest levels, reportedly including calls by President Bush to the principals at critical times
during the negotiations, and frequent visits to Kenya by senior State Department officials, where
the talks were being conducted. President Bush’s former Special Envoy, John Danforth, also
made several trips to the region to encourage the parties to finalize an agreement. Former
Secretary of State Colin Powell was actively engaged in the peace process and traveled to Kenya
to encourage the parties, according to U.S. officials and Sudanese sources. U.S. financial support
for the peace process and technical assistance during the talks were considered by the parties and
the mediators as critical, according to U.S. officials. The United States provided funding for the
SPLM delegation for travel and other related expenses. American interventions at critical times
during the negotiations helped break a number of stalemates, including during security
arrangement talks and the three disputed areas of Nuba, Southern Blue Nile, and Abyei.
21 Ted Dagne met with senior SPLA commanders in January 2008 in Juba, South Sudan.
22 Ted Dagne interview of President Salva Kiir in Juba, South Sudan.
Congressional Research Service
19
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Sustained U.S. pressure on the government of Sudan was a factor in securing the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement. The Bush Administration, while maintaining U.S. bilateral sanctions, also
engaged the government in critical dialogue and offered the normalization of bilateral relations as
an incentive for the resolution of the Darfur crisis and settlement of the North-South conflict,
according to U.S. officials and Sudanese sources. U.S. policy toward Sudan is complicated
because the same government that signed the peace agreement with the South is also the one
implicated in atrocities in Darfur, which the U.S. government has declared is genocide. This
reality has led to some criticism of the Bush Administration, although many praise the
Administration’s sustained engagement in the North-South talks. According to some critics, the
Administration did not initially consider the Darfur crisis to be a priority; instead the
Administration was largely focused on the CPA negotiations between the government of Sudan
and the SPLM. The first statement on Darfur by the White House, they point out, was issued in
early April 2004. The Bush Administration and Congress, however, have been at the forefront in
calling for an end to the crisis in Darfur and demanding accountability, especially since mid-2004.
The Crisis in Darfur: Background
The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel groups emerged to challenge the
National Congress Party (NCP) government in Darfur. The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the
Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) argued that the government of Sudan discriminates against
Muslim African ethnic groups in Darfur and has systematically targeted these ethnic groups since
the early 1990s. The government of Sudan dismisses the SLA and JEM as terrorists. The conflict
primarily pits three African ethnic groups, the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit, against nomadic
Arab ethnic groups. Periodic tensions between the largely African-Muslim ethnic groups and the
Arab inhabitants of Darfur can be traced to the 1930s and had surfaced again in the 1980s. Most
observers note that successive governments in Khartoum have long neglected the African ethnic
groups in Darfur and have done little to prevent or contain attacks by Arab militias against non-
Arabs in Darfur. Non-Arab groups took up arms against successive central governments in
Khartoum, albeit unsuccessfully. In the early 1990s, the National Islamic Front (NIF)
government, which came to power in 1989, began to arm Arab militias and attempted to disarm
the largely African ethnic groups.
The conflict in Darfur burgeoned when the government of Sudan and its allied militias began
what is widely characterized as a campaign of terror against civilians in an effort to crush the
rebellion and to punish the core constituencies of the rebels. At the heart of the current conflict is
a struggle for control of political power and resources. The largely nomadic Arab ethnic groups
often venture into the traditionally farming communities of Darfur for water and grazing, at times
triggering armed conflict between the two groups. Darfur is home to an estimated 7 million
people and has more than 30 ethnic groups, which fall into two major categories: African and
Arab. Both communities are Muslim, and years of intermarriages have made racial distinctions
difficult, if not impossible. Fighting over resources is one of several factors that has led to intense
infighting in Darfur over the years. Many observers believe that the NIF government has
systematically and deliberately pursued a policy of discrimination and marginalization of the
African communities in Darfur, and has given support to Arab militias to suppress non-Arabs,
whom it considers a threat to its hold on power. In 2000, after the ouster of the founder of the
NIF, Hassan al-Turabi, and after a split within the Islamist Movement, the government imposed a
state of emergency and used its new authority to crack down on dissidents in Darfur. By 2002, a
little-known self defense force emerged as the SLA, challenging government forces in Darfur.
Congressional Research Service
20
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
With the NCP regime internally in turmoil and mounting international pressure to end Sudan’s
North-South conflict, the SLA and JEM were able to gain the upper hand in the initial phase of
the conflict against government forces in early 2003, and appeared well armed and prepared. The
rebels also enjoyed the support of the local population, as well as officers and soldiers in the
Sudanese army. A significant number of senior officers and soldiers in the Sudanese armed forces
come from Darfur. The SLA reportedly benefitted from outside support, including from fellow
Zaghawa elements in Chad and financial support from some Darfur businessmen in the Persian
Gulf region. In late 2004, another Darfur armed group, the National Movement for Reform and
Development (NMRD) emerged. Initial reports suggested that the NMRD was created by the
government of Sudan in order to undermine the SLA and JEM. In December 2004, the NMRD
and the government of Sudan signed a ceasefire agreement in Chad and a month later agreed to
cooperate in facilitating the return of refugees from Chad to Darfur. Regional officials and
Sudanese opposition figures assert that the NMRD is backed by the government of Chad and that
the rebels wear uniforms and carry arms similar to those of the Chadian army. Since 2005, the
rebel groups have splintered into different factions and often clashed with each other. In June
2006, another rebel group was formed, the National Redemption Front (NRF), consisting of
several rebel faction groups. These include splinter groups from SLM and JEM, as well as the
Sudan Federal Democratic Alliance (SFDA).
Darfur Developments: Accountability for Atrocities
In July 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate unanimously passed resolutions
(H.Con.Res. 467, S.Con.Res. 133) declaring the crisis in Darfur to be genocide, based on the five
criteria for genocide enumerated in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide. On September 9, 2004, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared the atrocities in Darfur
genocide. Secretary Powell stated that, after reviewing evidence collected by the State
Department team, “genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and
the Jingaweit bear responsibility—and that genocide may still be occurring.” Powell further
stated that because the United States is a contracting party to the Geneva Convention, Washington
will demand that the United Nations “initiate a full investigation.” Shortly after Powell’s
testimony, a draft U.N. resolution (1564) was adopted.
The resolution requested the Secretary General of the United Nations to “establish an
international commission of inquiry in order to immediately investigate reports of violations of
international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties, to determine also
whether or not acts of genocide have occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations
with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable.” The declaration of genocide
by the Bush Administration did not lead to a major shift in U.S. policy or a threat of intervention
to end genocide. Instead, Bush Administration officials continued to support a negotiated
settlement between the rebels in Darfur and the government of Sudan. But continued violence in
Darfur and the government’s failure to disarm the Janjaweed militia further strained relations
between Khartoum and Washington.
In January 2005, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur submitted its report to then
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The 176-page report provided a detailed accounting of
atrocities committed by the government of Sudan and its Janjaweed militia allies. The
Commission declared that “based on thorough analysis of the information gathered in the course
of the investigations, the Commission established that the government of Sudan and the
Congressional Research Service
21
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Janjaweed are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian
law amounting to crimes under international law.”23 The Commission found, however, that “the
government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide.” The Commission, while
acknowledging that government officials and other individuals may have committed genocidal
acts, stated that “the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing.” The Commission
submitted a sealed document listing 51 suspects for prosecution by the International Criminal
Court (ICC).
U.S. officials argue that the government of Sudan is responsible for genocide in Darfur, despite
the Commission’s conclusion of no genocidal intent. Washington initially did not support the
Commission’s referral of these cases to the ICC. U.S. opposition to the ICC is unrelated to the
Darfur case. It is largely driven by concerns about the potential prosecution of U.S. personnel by
the ICC, and owing in part to this concern, the United States is not signatory to the ICC. In March
2005, the United States abstained on Security Council Resolution 1593, paving the way for its
passage. Resolution 1593 refers the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In June 2005, the Special Prosecutor of the ICC formally began an investigation. ICC spokesman
Yves Sorokobi indicated that the decision to launch the investigation came after the ICC had
finished its analysis of the referral by the U.N. Security Council. This analysis included, he said,
consultations with experts, ensuring that the ICC had met statutory requirements before beginning
the investigations. Meanwhile, ICC officials continue to gather information and pursue their
investigation, although the ICC has not issued any indictments to date. In July, the ICC Chief
Prosecutor charged President Bashir with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.24
Since the crisis began in 2003, sources estimate 450,000 people have been killed, more than 2
million displaced, and some 234,000 Sudanese are in refugee camps in neighboring Chad. The
security situation continues to deteriorate, especially since the signing of the peace agreement in
May 2006 reportedly due to recent troop deployments by the government of Sudan. According to
human rights groups, over a dozen humanitarian workers have been killed in Darfur, including an
International Rescue Committee nurse on September 1 and an International Committee of the Red
Cross driver on August 30, 2006. In 2007, according to reports, tens of thousands of Darfuree
civilians have been displaced from their homes by government and Janjaweed attacks. According
to a February 2008 United Nations report, “tensions inside camps of internally displaced persons
and carjacking incidents continued. One week after the transfer of authority from the African
Union Mission in the Sudan (AMIS) to UNAMID, the force faced its first armed attack.”25
Meanwhile, humanitarian groups have warned that they may not be able to continue to provide
assistance to the civilian population because of deteriorating security conditions. In November
2006, the government of Sudan ordered the Norwegian Refugee Council to leave the country,
while a German relief organization, Welthungerhilfe, announced it would pull out of Darfur for
safety reasons. In October 2006, armed militia attacked a village in Jebel Moon and Seleah in
West Darfur, killing over 50 people, including children and elderly. Meanwhile, security
conditions inside IDP camps deteriorated, with an increasing number of armed groups in the
camps. In his monthly report to the Security Council in November 2006, Secretary General Kofi
23 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary General. January 25,
2005.
24 For recent developments on the ICC and Sudan, please see the ICC and Sudan Section.
25 CBC News. Darfur heading for disaster unless U.N. troops are allowed: Annan, September 13, 2006, at
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/13.
Congressional Research Service
22
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Annan stated that “the insecurity, banditry and fighting which have characterized the reporting
period continued to prevent access to populations in need of humanitarian assistance.”26
According to the same report “in Northern Darfur alone, the World Food Program (WFP)
reported that 355,000 people went without food aid during July and August.”
In early August 2006, the government of Sudan submitted a letter to the United Nations Security
Council outlining the government’s decision to deploy significant new security forces and
implement other measures in Darfur. According to the government of Sudan, “the National Plan
embodies several priority themes for the restoration of normal life in Darfur.” The government of
Sudan began to deploy more than 26,500 troops and 7,050 police personnel in order to address
“threats imposed by the non-signatories of the Darfur Peace Agreement and getting control of the
security situation and restoration of peace in Darfur.” Human rights groups, U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan, and U.S. officials have criticized the deployment of these troops and stated
that this action violates the peace agreement. Meanwhile, senior commanders of the SLM, the
only group that signed the peace agreement, have stated that continued government attacks in
Darfur and continued rejection of a U.N. force could lead to the collapse of the peace agreement.
The Janjaweed: Background
Since the crisis in the Darfur region began in 2003, the name Janjaweed (also spelled as Janjawid,
Janjawad, Jingaweit, Jinjaweed) has become a very familiar name to many in the international
community. The Janjaweed and the government of Sudan have been accused of committing
genocide against civilians in Darfur by the United States government in 2004 as well as crimes
and crimes against humanity by the United Nations and other governments.
The existence of the Janjaweed goes back over a decade. In the mid-1980s, the government of
Sudan began to arm Arab militias in order to prevent African Darfuris from joining the Southern
Sudanese rebellion against the government. In 1983, the Sudan People’s Liberation
Movement/Army (SPLM/A) began its armed struggle against the government of Sudan. Attacks
against Darfuri African tribes and Nubans increased in intensity for most of the 1980s.
In 1991-1992, an SPLM commander from Darfur led a force into Darfur in support of the
Darfuris, who were being targeted by the government of Sudan and pro-government Arab militia.
Those targeted were the Fur, Massaliet, and Zagawa peoples. More than 200 villages were
attacked and later occupied by pro-government Arab militia in the Garsilla District, now know as
the Wadi-Saleh Province. These attacks were carried out by a group now known as the Janjaweed.
Daoud Yahya Bolad, who was a senior member of the National Islamic Front (NIF) in Darfur
before the 1989 coup, was the leading figure in the SPLM-led rebellion against the Sudanese
government in Darfur in the early 1990s. In 1976, Bolad, an ethnic Fur, was Chairman of the
student union of the University of Khartoum. He was sent by the NIF leadership to Darfur in the
late 1970s to recruit members for the NIF. He left the NIF due to a major disagreement with the
leader of the NIF, Hassan al-Turabi. Turabi and other NIF leaders recruited Arab youth to go to
Libya and other places for training purposes and began other activities without consultation with
Bolad and other Darfuri leaders.
26 Monthly report of the Secretary General on Darfur, November 8, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
23
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
The traditional leaders in Darfur described the Janjaweed then as men who own a horse and a G-3
rifle and who commit crimes against civilians. Darfuri leaders link the Janjaweed to a manifesto
called the Quresh. The principal objective of the Quresh, they argued, was to create a region
called Dar-el-Arab, Land of the Arabs. The architects of the manifesto and those who signed it are
senior members of the National Islamic Front government, currently known as the National
Congress Party.
The 1991-1992 rebellion against the NIF regime failed in large part due to lack of preparation
inside Darfur and major Janjaweed and government operations against the small SPLA force in
the region. The commander of the SPLA force decided to withdraw his troops after the
government and Arab militia forces discovered the location of the SPLA force before final
preparation for operations.
Elements within the government intensified their campaign to bring Bolad back into the NIF for
talks with pledges to change policies and address the concerns of the Darfuris. Bolad decided to
return to engage NIF officials against the advice of the SPLA leadership and the force
commander, believing that since he knew some of the leaders in the government and the NIF he
might be able to make a deal. Upon his return he was captured, tortured, and executed, according
to Sudanese sources.
For many Darfuris, the war between the various groups started well before 2003. Darfuris who
experienced the atrocities in the mid-1980s, in large part, are the ones currently fighting the
Janjaweed and the government of Sudan. The groups that were targeted in the mid-1980s are the
same ones currently being attacked by the Janjaweed and the government of Sudan: the Fur,
Massaliet, and Zagawa.
In the current crisis in Darfur, the Janjaweed are armed and protected by the government, and
their attacks against civilians are coordinated with the Sudan Armed Forces, the Popular Defense
Force, and other government-supported militia groups. Senior Sudanese government officials and
leaders of the Janjaweed admit this collaboration between the Janjaweed and the government. As
was the case in the mid-1980s, one of the main objectives of the Janjaweed is to push out African
Darfuris in order to take control of areas belonging to non-Arabs.
Human rights groups, foreign governments, and Sudanese groups have documented the atrocities
committed by the Janjaweed against Darfur civilians, humanitarian workers, and African Union
peacekeepers. Human Rights Watch in its report “Darfur Destroyed,”27 provides detailed accounts
of Janjaweed atrocities as well as those committed by government forces. Janjaweed leaders and
government officials claim that they are fighting rebels and violent militia. But the victims of
these atrocities have been reported as the civilians in Darfur, mainly the Zagawa, Fur, and
Massaliet. The Janjaweed, like the Interhamwe in Rwanda and the Lord’s Resistance Army in
Uganda, are reported to principally target civilians and terrorize the civilian population.
27 Human Rights Watch. Darfur Destroyed: Ethnic Cleansing by Government Forces and Militia. May 2004, at
http://hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/sudan0504simple.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
The Darfur Peace Agreement28 and Status of Implementation
On May 5, 2006, the Government of National Unity and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM)
signed the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) after almost two years of negotiations. The agreement
was rejected by two other Darfur groups: the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and a splinter
group from the SLM. The agreement called for the integration of 4,000 SLA troops into the
Sudan Armed Forces, provided $300 million initially and $200 million each in 2007 and 2008
from government funds for reconstruction and development purposes for Darfur, and established
the Transitional Darfur Regional Authority (TDRA), a new entity mandated under the DPA to
administer Darfur. The agreement provided seats for the SLM in the national and regional
parliaments and several top positions, including the chairmanship of the TDRA and Senior
Assistant to the President. The agreement also called for the disarmament and demobilization of
the Janjaweed.
On August 7, 2006, the leader of the SLM, Mini Minawi, was sworn in as Assistant to the
President. Since the signing of the agreement, the DPA has failed to win popular support in
Darfur. The faction that signed the agreement is also accusing the government of violating the
agreement. In mid-May 2006, violent demonstrations in IDP camps led to a number of deaths and
injuries. AMIS personnel have also been targeted, forcing African Mission in Sudan to reduce its
presence in IDP camps. Meanwhile, implementation of the agreement is also moving slowly.
According to the United Nations DPA Monitor report, “the parties continued to miss critical DPA
implementation deadlines.”29 The Preparatory Committee, tasked to organize the Darfur-Darfur
Dialogue, was not fully functional, although in late September a chairman was appointed to head
the Committee.
The African Union and the Crisis in Darfur
The African Union (AU) was slow in responding to the crisis in Darfur. The AU became actively
engaged during the cease-fire negotiation in Chad in 2004 and subsequently assumed a central
role in monitoring the cease-fire agreement and facilitating political dialogue between the
government of Sudan and SLA/JEM. In March 2004, the AU sent a team led by Ambassador Sam
Ibok, Director of the AU’s Peace and Security Department, to participate in talks in Chad. In the
April Cease-Fire Agreement, the AU was tasked to take the lead in the creation of a Cease-Fire
Commission. The Commission was tasked to define the routes for the movement of the respective
forces, assist with demining operations, and collect information about cease-fire violations. The
Commission reports to a Joint Commission composed of the parties to the agreement, Chad, and
members of the international community.
In January 2006, the African Union stated that transforming AMIS into a United Nations force is
acceptable to the AU in principle. In March, the AU agreed to accept a United Nations
peacekeeping mission for Darfur. Meanwhile, the Security Council requested that authorities in
the U.N. provide options for a U.N. peacekeeping operation. On September 20, 2006, AU
officials extended the AMIS peacekeeping operation until the end of December 2006, and in
December the AU extended the AMIS operation for another six months. In addition to its
peacekeeping responsibilities, AMIS was a key player in the implementation of key provisions of
28 http://www.sd.undp.org/doc/DPA.pdf.
29 Report on the Implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement, at http://www.unmis.org/english/dpaMonitor.htm.
Congressional Research Service
25
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
the DPA. The Ceasefire Commission and the Joint Commission were chaired by AMIS, while it
was also tasked to establish and play a key role in the Joint Humanitarian Facilitation and
Monitoring Unit. Security in IDP camps, creation of Demilitarized Zones, verification of
disengagement and demobilization were also the responsibility of AMIS. In late December 2007,
UNAMID officially assumed command and control from the African Union peacekeeping force.
China and Sudan
Relations between China and Sudan are warm. In the 1990s, political, economic, and military
relations between Sudan and China expanded, and China became a key trading partner, investing
billions of dollars in Sudan’s oil sector. China reportedly imports an estimated 64% of Sudan’s oil
and China’s National Petroleum Corporation is the largest shareholder (47%) in the two biggest
oil consortiums in Sudan, Petrodar and the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company
(GNPOC). In addition to the oil sector, China is an important player in other sectors of the
Sudanese economy. In February 2007, China signed a $1.2 billion agreement to upgrade the
railway between Khartoum and Port Sudan. China is also an active participant in power
generation, the arms industry, and other major infrastructure projects. China built the 1,000-mile
oil pipeline used by Sudan to move its oil from the oil fields in South Sudan to Port Sudan.
China is an important supplier of weapons to the government of Sudan. Sudan also produces
significant quantities of weapons itself and is the third-largest arms manufacturer in Africa, after
South Africa and Egypt. Human rights groups and other observers accuse the Chinese
government of being the principal supplier of weapons in violation of a U.N. weapons embargo
on Sudan. In 2005, China reportedly sold Sudan $24 million in arms and ammunition and $57
million worth of spare parts for aircraft and helicopters.30 In July 2008, a BBC Television report
presented evidence of Chinese army trucks and several A5 Fantan fighter planes in Darfur. In
February 2008, Fantan fighter planes were used to bomb the town of Beybey in Darfur in which a
number of civilians were reportedly killed. In June 2008, the BBC acquired satellite photographs
of two Fantan fighter planes at Nyala airport in South Darfur.31
China provides important political and financial support to the government of Sudan. As a
Permanent Member of the Security Council, China has threatened several times to veto U.N.
Security Council resolutions or has influenced the Council either to withdraw or amend
statements. In July 2008, a British-drafted Presidential Statement was withdrawn because of
Chinese opposition. China also has abstained on resolutions 1556, 1591, 1593, and 1706 relating
to Darfur. In 2007, China forgave $70 million in debt and provided $13 million in interest-free
loan to Sudan to build a new presidential palace.
30 Amnesty International. Sudan: Arms Continuing to Fuel Serious Human Rights Violations in Darfur, May 2007.
31 BBC News. China is Fueling War in Darfur, July 13, 2008. Ted Dagne spoke with the reporter on a number of
occasions, in preparation for the BBC Television report, which was aired on July 14, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
26
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Figure 1. Map of Sudan
Source: United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
Congressional Research Service
27
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Appendix A. Executive Order: Blocking Property of
and Prohibiting Transactions with the Government
of Sudan
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of
title 3, United States Code, and taking appropriate account of the Darfur Peace and Accountability
Act of 2006 (the “Act”),
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the
continuation of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States created
by certain policies and actions of the government of Sudan that violate human rights, in particular
with respect to the conflict in Darfur, where the government of Sudan exercises administrative
and legal authority and pervasive practical influence, and due to the threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States posed by the pervasive role played by the government of
Sudan in the petroleum and petrochemical industries in Sudan, it is in the interests of the United
States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order
13067 of November 3, 1997. Accordingly, I hereby order:
Sec. 1. Except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) or in
regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, all property
and interests in property of the government of Sudan that are in the United States, that hereafter
come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of
United States persons, including their overseas branches, are blocked and may not be transferred,
paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
Sec. 2. Except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) or in
regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and
notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective
date of this order, all transactions by United States persons relating to the petroleum or
petrochemical industries in Sudan, including, but not limited to, oilfield services and oil or gas
pipelines, are prohibited.
Sec. 3. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or
avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set
forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 4. (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, restrictions imposed by this order shall be in
addition to, and do not derogate from, restrictions imposed in and under Executive Order 13067.
(b)(I) None of the prohibitions in section 2 of Executive Order 13067 shall apply to activities or
related transactions with respect to Southern Sudan, Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State,
Blue Nile State, Abyei, Darfur, or marginalized areas in and around Khartoum, provided that the
activities or transactions do not involve any property or interests in property of the government of
Sudan.
Congressional Research Service
28
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
(ii) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, may define the
term “Southern Sudan, Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State, Blue Nile State, Abyei, Darfur,
or marginalized areas in and around Khartoum” for the purposes of this order.
(c) The function of the President under subsection 6(c)(1) of the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan
Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-497), as amended by section 5(a)(3) of the act, is assigned to the Secretary
of the Treasury as appropriate in the performance of such function.
(d) The functions of the President under subsection 6(c)(2) and the last sentence of 6(d) of the
Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-497), as amended by subsections 5(a)(3)
and (b), respectively, of the act, are assigned to the Secretary of State, except that the function of
denial of entry is assigned to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(e) The functions of the President under sections 7 and 8 of the act are assigned to the Secretary
of State.
Sec. 5. Nothing in this order shall prohibit:
(a) transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government or the United
Nations by employees thereof; or
(b) transactions in Sudan for journalistic activity by persons regularly employed in such capacity
by a news gathering organization.
Sec. 6. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group,
subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien,
entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States
(including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and
(d) the term “government of Sudan” includes the government of Sudan, its agencies,
instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Sudan, but does not include the
regional government of Southern Sudan.
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section
1 of this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because
of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of
measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore
determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in
Executive Order 13067 there need be no prior notice of a determination made pursuant to section
1 of this order.
Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby
authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to
employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may delegate any of these functions to other
Congressional Research Service
29
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All
executive agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate
measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to
advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken. The Secretary of
the Treasury shall ensure compliance with those provisions of section 401 of the NEA (50 U.S.C.
1641) applicable to the Department of the Treasury in relation to this order.
Sec. 9. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States,
its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other
person.
Sec. 10. This order shall take effect upon the enactment of the Darfur Peace and Accountability
Act of 2006.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 13, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
30
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
Appendix B. Executive Order: Blocking Property of
Persons in Connection with the Conflict in Sudan’s
Darfur Region
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), section 5 of the
United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c)(UNPA), and section 301 of title
3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States is posed by the
persistence of violence in Sudan’s Darfur region, particularly against civilians and including
sexual violence against women and girls, and by the deterioration of the security situation and its
negative impact on humanitarian assistance efforts, as noted by the United Nations Security
Council in Resolution 1591 of March 29, 2005, and, to deal with that threat, hereby expand the
scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, with
respect to the policies and actions of the government of Sudan, and hereby order:
Sec. 1. (a) Except to the extent that sections 203(b) (1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C.
1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)) may apply, or to the extent provided in regulations, orders, directives, or
licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into
or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order, all property and interests
in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the
United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States
person, including any overseas branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(I) the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and
(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary
of State:
(A) to have constituted a threat to the peace process in Darfur;
(B) to have constituted a threat to stability in Darfur and the region;
(C) to be responsible for conduct related to the conflict in Darfur that violates international law;
(D) to be responsible for heinous conduct with respect to human life or limb related to the conflict
in Darfur;
(E) to have directly or indirectly supplied, sold, or transferred arms or any related materiel, or any
assistance, advice, or training related to military activities to:
(1) the government of Sudan;
(2) the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army;
Congressional Research Service
31
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
(3) the Justice and Equality Movement;
(4) the Janjaweed; or
(5) any person (other than a person listed in subparagraph (E)(1) through (E)(4) above) operating
in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur, or West Darfur that is a belligerent, a non-
governmental entity, or an individual;
(F) to be responsible for offensive military over flights in and over the Darfur region;
(G) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, materiel, or technological
support for, or goods or services in support of, the activities described in paragraph (a)(ii)(A)
through (F) of this section or any person listed in or designated pursuant to this order; or
(H) to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or
indirectly, any person listed in or designated pursuant to this order.
(b) I hereby determine that, to the extent section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) may
apply, the making of donations of the type of articles specified in such section by, to, or for the
benefit of any person listed in or designated pursuant to this order would seriously impair my
ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067 and expanded in
this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (I) the making
of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any
person listed in or designated pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or
provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or
avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set
forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group,
subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien,
entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States
(including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and
(d) the term “arms or any related materiel” means arms or related materiel of all types, military
aircraft, and equipment, but excludes:
(I) supplies and technical assistance, including training, intended solely for use in authorized
monitoring, verification, or peace support operations, including such operations led by regional
organizations;
Congressional Research Service
32
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
(ii) supplies of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian use, human rights
monitoring use, or protective use, and related technical assistance, including training;
(iii) supplies of protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, for use by United
Nations personnel, representatives of the media, and humanitarian and development workers and
associated personnel, for their personal use only;
(iv) assistance and supplies provided in support of implementation of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement signed January 9, 2005, by the government of Sudan and the People’s Liberation
Movement/Army; and
(v) other movements of military equipment and supplies into the Darfur region by the United
States or that are permitted by a rule or decision of the Secretary of State, after consultation with
the Secretary of the Treasury.
Sec. 4. For those persons listed in or designated pursuant to this order who might have a
constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or
other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this
order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that, for these measures to
be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067 and
expanded by this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant
to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 5. The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby
authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to
employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and UNPA as may be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may delegate any of these functions to
other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All
agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures
within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise
the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken. The Secretary of the
Treasury shall ensure compliance with those provisions of section 401 of the NEA (50 U.S.C.
1641) applicable to the Department of the Treasury in relation to this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby
authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency
expanded by this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and
section 204(c) of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 7. The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby
authorized to determine, subsequent to the issuance of this order, that circumstances no longer
warrant the inclusion of a person in the Annex to this order and that the property and interests in
property of that person are therefore no longer blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States,
its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other
person.
Sec. 9. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 27, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
33
Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 26, 2006.
ANNEX
Individuals
1. Gabril Abdul Kareem Badri [Colonel for the National Movement for Reform and Development
(NMRD), born circa 1961]
2. Gaffar Mohmed El Hassan [Major General for the Sudan Armed Forces, born June 24, 1952]
3. Musa Hilal [Sheikh and Paramount Chief of the Jalul Tribe in North Darfur, born circa 1960]
4. Adam Yacub Shant [Commander for the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), born circa 1976]
Author Contact Information
Ted Dagne
Specialist in African Affairs
tdagne@crs.loc.gov, 7-7646
Congressional Research Service
34