Sudan
Lauren Ploch Blanchard
Specialist in African Affairs
March 23, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43957


Sudan

Summary
Congress has played an active role in U.S. policy toward Sudan for more than three decades.
Efforts to support an end to the country’s myriad conflicts and human rights abuses have
dominated the agenda by area, as have counterterrorism concerns. When unified (1956-2011),
Sudan was Africa’s largest nation, bordering nine countries and stretching from the northern
borders of Kenya and Uganda to the southern borders of Egypt and Libya. Strategically located
along the Nile River and the Red Sea, Sudan was historically described as a crossroads between
the Arab world and Africa. Domestic and international efforts to unite the country’s ethnically,
racially, religiously, and culturally diverse population under a common national identity fell short,
however, and in 2011, after decades of civil war and a six-year transitional period, Sudan split in
two. Mistrust between the two Sudans—Sudan and South Sudan—lingers, and unresolved
disputes and related security issues still threaten to pull the two countries back to war.
The north-south split did not resolve other simmering Sudanese conflicts, notably in Darfur, Blue
Nile, and Southern Kordofan. Roughly 4.5 million people remain displaced as a result of fighting
in these areas. Like the rest of the Sahel, Sudan is susceptible to drought and food insecurity,
despite significant agricultural potential in some areas; civilians in conflict zones are particularly
vulnerable. Instability and government restrictions have limited relief agencies’ access to conflict-
affected populations. Logistical challenges, particularly during seasonal rains, also constrain the
delivery of relief for those who have fled Sudan, primarily across the border to remote refugee
camps in South Sudan. The conflict that emerged in South Sudan in late 2013 further threatens
access to those refugees, and has led more than 120,000 South Sudanese to flee into Sudan. The
harassment of aid workers is a problem in both countries, further hindering aid responses.
The peaceful separation of Sudan and South Sudan was seen by some as an opportunity to repair
relations between Sudan’s Islamist government and the United States. Those ties have long been
strained over Khartoum’s human rights violations and history of support to terrorist groups.
Among the arguments in favor of normalizing relations has been the notion that the United States,
given robust sanctions already in place, has few additional unilateral “sticks” to apply. Advocates
have argued that certain “carrots,” such as easing sanctions or elevating the level of diplomatic
engagement, might advance U.S. policy goals. Efforts by the Obama Administration to improve
relations, given Sudan’s counterterrorism cooperation and its acceptance of South Sudan’s
separation, have been impeded by reports of ongoing abuses, including allegations that Sudan
continues to commit war crimes against civilians. Diplomatic relations are also complicated by
the fact that several Sudanese officials, notably President Omar al Bashir, stand accused of war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide at the International Criminal Court.
In 2014, under domestic and international pressure to address calls for reform and resolve
ongoing conflicts, President Bashir announced a new National Dialogue initiative, under which
the government would engage with opposition and civil society groups on the development of a
new constitution. The African Union, the United Nations, the Obama Administration and other
international actors have been cautiously supportive of the initiative, although the extent of the
government’s commitment to major political reforms remains unclear, and efforts to facilitate the
participation of armed opposition groups in the process have been, to date, unsuccessful.
This report provides a brief overview of political, economic, and humanitarian conditions in
Sudan and examines the conflict dynamics that persist in the country. It also outlines U.S. policy
and congressional engagement.
Congressional Research Service

Sudan

Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Current Conflicts in Sudan .............................................................................................................. 4
Darfur ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Compliance with the U.N. Sanctions Regime ..................................................................... 7
Compliance with the International Criminal Court ............................................................. 8
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile ............................................................................................. 9
The Humanitarian Situation ............................................................................................................. 9
Political Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 10
U.S. Policy and Foreign Assistance ............................................................................................... 12
Congressional Engagement on U.S. Policy Toward Sudan ..................................................... 14
U.S. Assistance ........................................................................................................................ 14
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Figures
Figure 1. Map of Sudan ................................................................................................................... 3

Tables
Table 1. State Department and USAID Assistance to Sudan, by Account ..................................... 15

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

Sudan

Overview
The U.S. Congress has a long history of engagement on U.S. policy toward Sudan—since the end
of apartheid in South Africa, there is no country in Africa on which Congress has focused more
sustained attention. This bipartisan focus has been driven in part by diverse advocacy groups and
public awareness campaigns on issues in Sudan ranging from famine to modern-day slavery,
religious persecution, genocide, and other violations of human rights and humanitarian law.
Terrorism concerns have overlapped the policy debates.
Prior to the secession of South Sudan, Sudan was Africa’s largest nation by area, and the site of
its longest running civil war. In 2011, after decades of fighting broadly described as a conflict
between the “Arab” Muslim north and “African” Christian and animist south, the country split in
two.1 Mistrust between Sudan and South Sudan lingers, and unresolved disputes still threaten the
stability of the region. The north-south split did not resolve other simmering Sudanese conflicts,
notably in Darfur, Blue Nile, and Southern Kordofan (see Figure 1). Overlapping struggles
between security forces and armed groups, among ethnic groups, and between nomadic and
farming communities have caused extensive displacement and human suffering. Across the
country, social tensions, economic pressures, and political dissent pose ongoing challenges for the
Islamist government that came to power through a coup in 1989.
The secession of South Sudan was a major financial blow to Sudan, which lost 75% of its oil
production, two-thirds of its export earnings, and half of its fiscal revenues.2 The country carries a
heavy external debt burden of $45 billion (78% of GDP), much of it in arrears. Khartoum’s
internal military operations against restive regions continue to draw international condemnation
and have prevented Sudan from normalizing relations with many Western countries, including the
United States. U.S. sanctions limit Sudan’s access to U.S. dollars and, alongside debt arrears,
impede Sudan’s access to international financial markets and institutions. After the United States
levied heavy fines against the French bank BNP Paribas in 2014 for violating U.S. sanctions
against Sudan and other countries, most foreign banks stopped transacting with Sudanese banks,
tightening the foreign exchange market and adversely affecting its trade.3 The International
Monetary Fund anticipates that the breakdown in relations with correspondent banks could have a
“considerable negative impact on the economy.”4 The ongoing cost of waging war on multiple

1 Sudan, when unified, was composed of more than 400 ethnic groups. Arab identity has cultural, linguistic, religious,
and racial connotations that have been manipulated by northern political elites. Many northern groups identify
themselves as “Arab” based on lineage they trace back to traders from the Arabian Peninsula who integrated with the
indigenous population centuries ago. Sudanese politics have been dominated by the Arabized “Riverine tribes” that live
along the Nile north of Khartoum. The CIA World Factbook states that in post-separation Sudan “Arabs” comprise
70% of the population—the Riverine Arabs are a small minority among this broader group of Arab Sudanese. While all
Sudanese are African, the term “African” is often applied to non-Arab ethnic groups to differentiate from Arab groups.
2 Sudan’s remaining oil production was 127,000 barrels per day in 2014. It relies increasingly on gold exports that total
over $1 billion per year, agriculture, and revenues derived from a deal with land-locked South Sudan for the export of
its oil through Sudanese territory. Sudan received $884 million in transit fees for South Sudan oil in 2014.
3 BNP Paribas pled guilty in a U.S. federal court in June 2014 to violating U.S. sanctions and was fined $8.9 billion.
Since then, Germany’s Commerzbank agreed in March 2015 to a $1.45 billion settlement for various sanctions and
banking violations, including transfers through the U.S. financial system on behalf of Iranian and Sudanese companies.
4 International Monetary Fund, Sudan: 2014 Article IV Consultation and Second Review Under Staff-Monitored
Program – Staff Report
, December 30, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
1

Sudan

fronts compounds Sudan’s economic troubles and, combined with allegations of political
repression, fuels domestic criticism of the government and sparks periodic public protests.
Investment from some Arab Gulf countries has slowed in recent years as relations have cooled,
amid rising concern over Sudan’s ties to Iran and perceived support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Khartoum took diplomatic steps to address concerns about its relationship with Iran in September
2014, expelling Iran’s cultural attaché and closing its cultural centers in the country. The extent of
its security association with Iran, however, remains subject to speculation. Iranian warships make
routine port visits, and the countries have a long history of diplomatic and military ties. Iran has
reportedly played a significant role in the development of Sudan’s military industry (Sudan now
ranks as the third largest weapons manufacturer on the continent, after Egypt and South Africa).5
The two countries also have been purportedly involved in weapons smuggling to Gaza, and Israel
has reportedly conducted several air strikes in Sudan to disrupt the route.6Allegations of Sudanese
support for Islamist militias in neighboring Libya in 2014 appeared to place further strain on
Sudan’s relations with some Arab countries, including Egypt.7
Background
After Sudan gained independence from Anglo-Egyptian rule in 1956, successive governments in
Khartoum perpetuated development disparities between the north and south that were, in part, a
legacy of colonial administration. Northern “Arab”-led regimes espousing Islamist ideals have
dominated Sudan’s political history since independence, often pursuing policies to press distant
provinces to conform to the political and sometimes sectarian priorities of the center, Khartoum,
rather than accommodating the country’s diverse local customs and institutions. Instead of
forging a common national identity, these policies have exacerbated Sudan’s racial, cultural, and
religious differences. Government efforts to Arabize and Islamize the countryside met with
resistance from southerners and other marginalized groups, sparking two related insurgencies in
the south (1955-1972 and 1983-2005).8 Groups in other regions have risen up periodically, citing
local grievances. In the 1980s, for example, minority groups in the ethnically diverse central
states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile joined the southern rebellion, the Sudan People’s
Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A).


5 Sudan produces small arms, light weapons and ammunition, military vehicles, naval boats, and communications and
optical equipment, among other items. Many of its products replicate foreign-manufactured items, often of Chinese and
Iranian design, according to experts. See Small Arms Survey, “The Military Industry Corporation (MIC),” July 2, 2014.
6 See, e.g., “Smuggling weapons to Gaza—the long way,” CNN, November 19, 2012. For more on Sudan’s relationship
with Iran, see, e.g., Harry Verhoeven, “Middle East’s sectarian tensions play out in Sudan-Iran relations,” World
Politics Review
, September 22, 2014.
7 See, e.g., “Libya accuses Sudan of arming ‘terrorists’” Al Arabiya, September 6, 2014.
8 Official efforts to “Arabize” Sudan began with Gen. Ibrahim Abboud (president from 1958 to 1964), who declared
Arabic the official language for administration and education and expelled Christian missionaries. See Francis M.
Deng, War of Visions: Conflict of Identities in the Sudan (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1995), and
Robert O. Collins, A History of Modern Sudan (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Congressional Research Service
2



Sudan

Figure 1. Map of Sudan

Source: CRS.
Revenues from Sudan’s oil reserves, which were discovered in 1978 in southern Sudan, primarily
benefitted the north, in particular state elites in Khartoum. Oil money also financed the
government’s countering of domestic insurgencies with force—first in the south, and then also in
the west and east. These counter-insurgency campaigns did not discriminate between fighters and
civilians, and the government repeatedly questioned the neutrality of international aid agencies
and restricted access to affected populations. The rebel groups persisted, and among them the
SPLA was the most successful in gaining ground against the more heavily armed Sudanese
military. The SPLA faced internal divisions in the 1990s, largely along ethnic lines; Khartoum
fueled these splits by arming breakaway factions. Along the north-south border, Khartoum also
used its oil revenues to finance local Arab militias as a front line against the south.
Sudan’s north-south war took a heavy toll on both sides, and in 2005, the government and the
SPLM signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The CPA enshrined the south’s right
to self-determination after an “interim period” of more than six years, during which the SPLM
and the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) formed a unity government. Despite the NCP’s
stated effort to “make unity attractive” to southern Sudanese during the interim period,
southerners saw few, if any, benefits from remaining part of Sudan and voted overwhelmingly in
a January 2011 referendum to secede. South Sudan achieved independence in July of that year.
The CPA failed to resolve several contentious issues, and talks have continued on border disputes
and related security issues, debts, and once-shared resources, such as oil. Sudan and South Sudan
signed partial deals on security and economic cooperation in 2012, but the deployment of a joint
Congressional Research Service
3

Sudan

monitoring mission to ensure the demilitarization of their shared border has been repeatedly
delayed. The proximity to the border of rebel activity in Sudan’s “new south” (Southern
Kordofan, Blue Nile, and the southern part of the Darfur region), and the unresolved status of
contested areas such as the Abyei region, have significantly complicated border demilitarization.
The border region of Abyei, which was accorded special semi-autonomous status in the CPA, has
repeatedly been a flashpoint for violence. The deployment of the U.N. Interim Force for Abyei
(UNISFA) defused a violent standoff in 2011 between Sudan and South Sudan, but tensions
among local communities still have the potential to destabilize the border and draw the two
countries back into direct conflict.9 Under the CPA, Abyei residents were to vote in a 2011
referendum on whether the area should retain its special status in Sudan or join South Sudan. A
dispute about voter eligibility has delayed the process.10 The Ngok Dinka, who have historically
comprised a majority of the area’s permanent residents, controversially held their own
referendum in 2013, voting to secede from Sudan. Neither Sudan nor the international community
has recognized the result. The final status of Abyei is likely to remain unresolved until Sudan and
South Sudan negotiate a resolution, possibly as part of a broader deal on outstanding issues
between the countries. The United Nations has pressed, unsuccessfully to date, for the
establishment of a temporary local administration and police service to maintain order until a
final settlement is reached. Sudan’s upcoming elections, scheduled for April 2015, may inflame
tensions if they are held in the area.
The armed forces of Sudan and South Sudan have engaged in minor clashes along the border
sporadically since separation, most prominently in 2012 when the South Sudanese army briefly
occupied the Sudanese oil town of Heglig, purportedly acting in self-defense after an attack on its
territory. Sudan bombed one of South Sudan’s oil fields in retaliation and further skirmishes
ensued. South Sudan periodically accuses Sudan of conducting other air strikes inside its territory.
Sudan alleges that South Sudan’s ruling party, the SPLM (the former rebel movement), provides
support and refuge for Sudanese rebel groups (the likely target of reported air strikes). South
Sudan contends that Sudan has, at times, provided weapons and other support for South Sudanese
rebel militia, including, most recently, the rebellion known as the SPLM-in Opposition (SPLM-
iO), led by South Sudan’s former vice president, Riek Machar. In the context of South Sudan’s
current conflict, there is concern that this alleged proxy support by both sides could spark a wider
regional war. Given the mass displacement already caused by the conflicts in the two countries,
direct hostilities between the two countries could have devastating humanitarian consequences.
Current Conflicts in Sudan
The CPA did not resolve Sudan’s long-standing center-periphery tensions. Khartoum has
continued to respond to the political demands of restive regions more often with force than
reform. Its response to an uprising in Darfur in the early 2000s (discussed below) prompted the

9 UNISFA is composed almost entirely of Ethiopian troops. For more on rising tensions, see U.N. Security Council,
Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation in Abyei, S/2015/77, January 28, 2015.
10 Abyei is home to the Ngok Dinka, a subset of South Sudan’s largest ethnic group. The area has also long been used
by the Misseriya, an Arab nomadic group, who migrate south through Abyei seasonally to graze their cattle. Many
Misseriya fought in militias allied with Khartoum during the civil war, while most Ngok Dinka supported the SPLM.
The Ngok Dinka have accused Khartoum of settling tens of thousands of Misseriya in the area, purportedly to sway the
referendum vote in favor of Abyei remaining part of Sudan, and arming them to fuel instability.
Congressional Research Service
4

Sudan

George W. Bush Administration to declare that Khartoum’s “scorched earth policy” against the
rebels and civilians constituted genocide.11 More than a decade later, widespread violence still
plagues that region. The government’s response to a rebellion launched in 2011 in Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile (often referred to as “the Two Areas”) has also drawn international
concern. More than 2 million people have been displaced in the context of that conflict. Unlike in
Darfur, where relief agencies are able to operate in most areas, humanitarian access is extremely
restricted in those states.
As in Darfur, where the Sudanese government has been accused of war crimes and crimes against
humanity, Khartoum has been accused of grave violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law in the Two Areas. It finances local Arab militias, including the paramilitary
Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which have been deployed, like the infamous Janjaweed in Darfur,
in what the U.N. Panel of Experts on Sudan refers to as a “proxy war” against rebel groups. The
RSF are widely criticized for indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against civilians in
insurgent areas.12 The government also continues aerial bombings in Darfur, in violation of U.N.
Security Council resolution 1591 (2005), and in the Two Areas, and has been accused of targeting
hospitals in Darfur and Southern Kordofan in the past year.
According to the U.N. Panel of Experts, which the U.N. Security Council created to monitor an
arms embargo in Darfur and a related sanctions regime, the government’s strategy “appears to
consist of (a) collective punishment of villages and communities from which the armed
opposition groups are believed to come or operate; (b) induced or forced displacement of those
communities; and (c) direct engagement, including aerial bombardment, of the groups when their
location can be identified.”13 The Panel’s reporting, which is limited to Darfur, indicates that
3,324 Darfuri villages were destroyed in the five-month period from December 2013 to April
2014, coinciding with a Sudanese military operation led by the RSF known as “Operation
Decisive Summer.” Independent human rights groups also documented extensive damage to
civilian areas in Southern Kordofan in the context of that operation.14 In December 2014, with the
onset of the dry season, referred to in Sudan as “the fighting season,” Sudan’s defense minister
announced the launching of new offensive operations against the rebels in both regions.15 Those
operations, which President Omar al Bashir subsequently described as aiming to eliminate armed
groups that do not heed the government’s call for dialogue, are ongoing.16
Darfur
In the early 2000s, as Khartoum and the SPLM were beginning to negotiate an end to their civil
war, a new conflict was unfolding in the western region of Darfur. Underlying tensions between
Darfuri groups over land, water, and grazing rights had driven low-level violence in this arid land

11 Testimony of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, The Current Situation in Sudan
and the Prospects for Peace
, September 9, 2004.
12 See, e.g., Akshaya Kumar and Omer Ismael, Janjaweed Reincarnate: Sudan’s New Army of War Criminals, June
2014; and U.N. Security Council, Report of the Panel of Experts on the Sudan, S/2015/31, January 19, 2015.
13 U.N. Security Council, Report of the Panel of Experts on the Sudan, S/2015/31, January 19, 2015.
14 See, e.g., Amnesty International, Sudan: Civilians Under Attack in Southern Kordofan, June 2014.
15 “Minister of Defense in Al Fashir: Decisive summer operations (two) launched,” Sudanese News Agency, December
11, 2014.
16 U.N. Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in
Darfur
, S/2015/141, February 26, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
5

Sudan

for decades, and the central government had historically struggled to govern the region.17 For
years, arms flows by both internal and external actors, including neighboring Libya and Chad,
further fueled the violence. Described in 2004 by the State Department as “the worst
humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world,” what began as a conflict primarily between
Arab and non-Arab ethnic groups, namely the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa, quickly deteriorated
into a civil war characterized by “widespread and systematic” rape, torture, killings, forced
displacement, and the looting and destruction of hundreds of villages.18 The crisis drew a massive
humanitarian response in the mid-2000s, stemming the casualties, but continuing insecurity in the
region has discouraged more than 2 million displaced persons from returning to their homes.19 In
effect, the conflict created a large semi-urban population with few means of sustaining itself
economically. Many of the displaced remain reliant on food aid to survive.
Fighting in Darfur among ethnic communities, armed groups, and the military has escalated since
early 2013, causing displacement on a scale not seen since the first years of the conflict. The 2011
Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD) has not stopped the violence.20 By many accounts,
the lack of accountability for crimes perpetrated by local groups has generated a sense of
impunity in the region. Khartoum’s evolving use of local proxies to spur tensions between ethnic
communities over land and political power has changed the dynamics of the conflict, and
increasing inter-tribal conflicts and fissures within the various armed groups further complicate
the path toward a peaceful settlement in the region. Some Arab groups that were previously
aligned with the Bashir regime, for example, have recently accused Khartoum of exploiting the
Arab tribes in Darfur and declared themselves in opposition to the government’s actions.21
Access by peacekeepers and humanitarian organizations to affected communities in Darfur is
limited by both insecurity and government restrictions. Violent criminality in the region has risen,
and humanitarian workers have been abducted for ransom. Contestation over land and local
natural resources has long been a factor of conflict in the region, and disputes over resources such
as gold have fueled further clashes in recent years. Attacks by armed groups against civilians,
peacekeepers, and relief workers remain a serious problem—more than 60 peacekeepers have
been killed in Darfur since the mission began in 2007.22 The credibility of the African Union-
U.N. Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) has increasingly been questioned amid allegations
that it has self-censored its reporting related to state-backed crimes against civilians and
peacekeepers. In 2014, when a former UNAMID spokesperson revealed unpublished documents
from the mission, a Foreign Policy correspondent wrote:
UNAMID... has been reluctant to cast blame on the Sudanese government...without
irrefutable firsthand proof collected by its personnel, an evidentiary standard that has been

17 For background on Darfur, see, e.g., J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, Darfur: The Long Road to Disaster
(Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2008).
18 State Department, Documenting Atrocities in Darfur, September 2004; and Report of the International Commission
of Inquiry on Darfur to the U.N. Security Council Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564,
January 25, 2005.
19 Julie Flint and Alex de Waal, Darfur: a New History of a Long War (London: Zed Books, 2008); Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Sudan Humanitarian Update: 2nd Quarter 2012, July 16, 2012.
20 The DDPD was a peace agreement signed in Qatar in 2011 between the government and the Liberation and Justice
Movement (LJM), an umbrella group of rebel splinter factions. The main Darfur rebel groups rejected the deal, and
implementation of the agreement has been limited. For more, see, e.g., International Crisis Group, Sudan’s Spreading
Conflict (III): The Limits of Darfur’s Peace Process
, Africa Report no. 211, January 27, 2014.
21 For more, see, e.g., Nuba Reports, “Musa Hilal and the spreading fires in Darfur,” March 25, 2014.
22 To date, 61 UNAMID peacekeepers have been killed in hostile attacks, with the most recent deaths in October 2014.
Congressional Research Service
6

Sudan

impossible to achieve. As a result, UNAMID public reporting has often minimized Sudan’s
violations or withheld strong circumstantial evidence of Khartoum’s complicity in, or
responsibility for, attacks in UNAMID’s reports to the U.N. Security Council.23
Despite ongoing conflict and a humanitarian situation described by U.N. officials as “dire and
very worrisome,” UNAMID is under pressure from Sudan’s government to develop an “exit
strategy.”24 President Bashir alleged in late 2014 that “UNAMID has become a security burden on
the Sudanese army more than a supportive [sic] to its forces in the protection of civilians, and
unable to protect themselves” and accuses the force of acting as “a protector to the rebels.”25
While the government subsequently clarified that it did not intend for an immediate exit,
negotiations on a strategy are underway. As part of an effort to streamline its personnel and
recalibrate its activities toward identified strategic priorities, UNAMID will cut 1,260 of its 4,110
civilian positions in the next two years. Its authorized troop size is already down from almost
20,000 to just below 15,800. The mission is reducing its aviation fleet and has transferred 400 of
its vehicles to West Africa for Ebola response. In November 2014, Sudan forced the closure of the
mission’s human rights office in Khartoum, which the government contends is outside
UNAMID’s mandate. The following month, Sudan expelled the top two officials from the U.N.
Development Program (UNDP), including the U.N. Resident Humanitarian Coordinator.
Reports of Mass Rape in Thabit, North Darfur
Tensions between Sudan’s government and the United Nations have mounted since late October 2014, when the
Sudanese Armed Forces were accused of raping more than 200 women and girls in the North Darfur vil age of Thabit.
According to Human Rights Watch, which conducted phone interviews with villagers because of travel restrictions,
soldiers committed serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws in the context of
operations against a village that was seen as supportive of one of the rebel groups.26 Human Rights Watch contends
that mass rape may amount to crimes against humanity if committed in the context of a widespread or systematic
attack on a civilian population. Despite repeated requests in the days after the incident, a UNAMID team was not
permitted access to the vil age until November 9, during which time a heavy Sudanese security force presence during
the team’s interviews rendered its findings inconclusive. In their first report, they indicated no evidence of mass rape.
Subsequent UNAMID requests to return to Thabit have been rejected by the government.
Compliance with the U.N. Sanctions Regime
In 2005, the U.N. Security Council established an arms embargo on Darfur. Critics note that arms
regularly flow between Darfur and the rest of the country and argue that the Security Council
should widen the embargo to cover all of Sudan.27 In its January 2015 report, the Panel of Experts
cites the government’s “routine violations of the arms embargo” and identifies members of
Sudan’s security forces as the perpetrators of violations of international humanitarian law in
attacks against civilians in North and South Darfur.28 The Panel argues that Sudan’s lack of

23 Colum Lynch, “They just stood watching,” Foreign Policy, April 7, 2014. See also Colum Lynch, “Now we will kill
you,” and “A mission that was set up to fail,” Foreign Policy, April 8, 2014.
24 U.N. Security Council, Official Record of the 7326th meeting of the Security Council, S/PB.7326, December 4, 2014.
The initial response to Khartoum’s request for UNAMID’s exit strategy, which appears to involve a gradual, phased
drawdown, is outlined in U.N. Security Council, Special Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union -
United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur
, S/2015/163, March 13, 2015.
25 “Sudan president urges UNAMID to leave Darfur,” Sudan Tribune, November 30, 2014.
26 Human Rights Watch, Mass Rape in Darfur: Sudanese Army Attacks Against Civilians in Tabit, February 11, 2015.
27 See, e.g., Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, “Populations at Risk: Sudan,” at
http://www.globalr2p.org/regions/sudan.
28 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7

Sudan

cooperation in implementing the U.N. assets freeze and travel ban for four designated individuals
(among them a military commander) and its refusal to comply with the arms embargo renders the
sanctions regime “in effect inoperative within Sudan.” Following a February 2015 decision by the
Security Council to extend the Panel’s mandate, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Samantha Power remarked, “we are reminded that the sanctions regime is impotent when the
Sudanese government systematically violates it, and the Council cannot agree to impose sanctions
on those responsible for the violence and the abuses.”29
Compliance with the International Criminal Court
In 2005, the U.N. Security Council granted the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction
over serious crimes committed in Darfur. The ICC did not have territorial jurisdiction in Sudan
prior to the referral, as it is not a state party to the Rome Statute establishing the Court. Darfur
was the first case the Council referred to the Court. Ten years later, the ICC has yet to commence
a trial in the case. Six ICC arrest warrants remain outstanding, including one for the arrest of
Sudan’s defense minister and two for the arrest of President Bashir on accusations of war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and genocide. Sudan has not cooperated with the Court, and in
December 2014, the ICC Prosecutor announced that she was suspending the investigations,
expressing frustration with inaction by the Security Council on the outstanding arrest warrants.
The warrants remain active. In her statement to the Security Council, the Prosecutor suggested
that some of those sought by the Court “continue to be implicated in atrocities committed against
innocent civilians,” and added that the situation in Darfur was “deteriorating,” with the brutality
of crimes becoming “more pronounced” (see below).30
In March 2015, the ICC requested that the Security Council take “necessary measures to enforce
compliance” by Sudan with the arrest warrant for President Bashir, noting that while Sudan is not
a state party to the ICC Rome Statute, it is obligated to cooperate based on its status as a U.N.
member and on Security Council resolution 1593 (2005). In it, the Council determined that the
government “shall” cooperate with the Court. According to the ICC, “if there is no follow up
action” by the Security Council, “any referral by the Council to the ICC under Chapter VII of the
UN Charter would never achieve its ultimate goal, namely, to put an end to impunity.
Accordingly, any such referral would become futile.”31
African countries have struggled with how to respond to a warrant against a sitting head of state.
Most are states parties to the Rome Statute and thus bound to execute ICC warrants, but several
have allowed Bashir to travel to their territories in recent years. In January 2015, the African
Union’s Assembly approved a resolution requesting that the Security Council withdraw its
referral of the Sudan case to the ICC.32 Some African governments have threatened to withdraw
their accession to the Rome Statute, but none have formally done so to date.

29 U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, Explanation of Vote at a Security Council Session on the
Sudan Sanctions Panel of Experts Renewal, February 12, 2015.
30 “Security Council inaction on Darfur ‘can only embolden perpetrators’—ICC prosecutor,” UN News Service,
December 12, 2014.
31 International Criminal Court Pre Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for a Finding of Non-
Compliance Against the Republic of the Sudan
, ICC-02/05-01/09, March 9, 2015.
32 African Union Assembly, Decision on the Progress Report of the Commission on the Implementation of Previous
Decisions on the International Criminal Court (ICC)
, Doc. Assembly/AU/18(XXIV), January 30-31, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
8

Sudan

Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
In 2011, with the international community focused on ensuring the peaceful separation of Sudan
and South Sudan and Khartoum still struggling to contain multiple armed insurgencies in Darfur,
rebellions in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile opened a new southern front among Sudan’s array
of internal conflicts. The conflict in the Two Areas is driven by unresolved grievances against
Khartoum that date back to the north-south war, when some groups in these areas joined the
SPLM’s rebellion against the government. The CPA provided for a process in which the two
states might achieve greater autonomy within Sudan, but the process stalled and the conflict
reignited in 2011. South Sudan’s ruling party has denied any ties to the insurgency, although the
rebels, known as the SPLM-North (SPLM-N) remain linked to the SPLM by their historic
relationship. In addition to alleged support from South Sudan, the SPLM-N draws support from
Darfur rebel groups like the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The SPLM-N and the three
main Darfur rebel groups have formed a loose armed alliance known as the Sudan Revolutionary
Front (SRF).33 While the Darfur groups operate independently of one another in Darfur, they have
reportedly conducted several joint operations in Southern Kordofan with the SPLM-N.
Khartoum has restricted aid agencies’ access to rebel-held areas since the conflict began, and
military bombings and state-backed militia attacks exacerbate the already grave humanitarian
situation in these areas.34 According to the Small Arms Survey, which provides extensive
reporting and analysis on Sudan’s conflicts, the fighting and air strikes have pushed the remaining
population away from their home areas into government-controlled urban centers or to
neighboring countries as refugees. Local monitors further suggest that air strikes have
increasingly targeted farms and food stocks, purportedly to “starv[e] the population to weaken its
support for the rebellion.”35 Unlike in Darfur, there is no U.N. sanctions regime focused on the
conflict in the Two Areas, nor a U.N. Panel of Experts or U.N. peacekeeping operation.
The Humanitarian Situation
Sudan’s conflicts continue to cause mass displacement and create widespread humanitarian needs.
U.N. estimates suggest that more than 6.6 million Sudanese require humanitarian aid.36 Of that
figure, 4.4 million are in Darfur (almost 60% of Darfur’s total estimated population). More than
2.5 million people from Darfur are displaced internally—some 457,000 Darfuris were displaced
in 2014 alone, and by U.N. estimates more than 41,000 people were displaced between December
2014 and March 2015. Chad hosts 365,000 Darfur refugees. Another 2 million Sudanese have
been internally displaced or severely affected by conflict in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and
Abyei. Ethiopia and South Sudan host more than 250,000 refugees from Southern Kordofan and
Blue Nile, and 44,000 Abyei residents remain displaced in South Sudan. Relief agencies are also
struggling to assist more than 120,000 South Sudanese refugees in Sudan who have fled conflict
in their own country. Sudan hosts more than 100,000 refugees from Eritrea.

33 For more on the SRF, see Andrew McCutchen, The Sudan Revolutionary Front: Its Formation and Development,
Small Arms Survey, October 2014.
34 For more on the situation in the Nuba Mountains, the area of Southern Kordofan hardest hit by the conflict, including
video, see independent reporting by Nuba Reports, available at http://www.nubareports.org.
35 Small Arms Survey, “Conflict in the Two Areas,” updated January 29, 2015 on
http://www.smallarmssurveysudan.org.
36 Figures cited here are from U.N. Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) March 2015 reporting.
Congressional Research Service
9

Sudan

Access by relief agencies to Sudan’s conflict zones is at times constrained by government
restrictions, fighting, and other forms of insecurity. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)-Belgium
announced in late January 2015 that it was halting operations in Sudan in response to the
government’s “systematic” denial of access to people in conflict areas and other administrative
blockages. Nine days prior, a hospital operated by MSF-France was bombed by the Sudanese
military in Southern Kordofan, prompting MSF to withdraw from that state. Sudan previously
expelled 13 international relief organizations in 2009 (some were subsequently allowed to return),
and banned four aid groups from eastern Sudan in 2012.
Political Challenges
President Bashir has been in office since 1989 and was reelected in April 2010 for a five-year
term.37 Under the current constitution, he is eligible to stand for one more term. In January 2014,
he announced that the government would commence a National Dialogue on conflict and political
issues in the country, in preparation for the development of a new constitution.38 While the move
seemed to indicate official recognition of the mounting domestic calls for reform, many observers
are skeptical that the National Congress Party leadership would agree to significant political
changes. The NCP’s views on governance appear to differ significantly from those of many
opposition groups, and while the government has publicly committed to a single dialogue with
unarmed opposition and civil society groups, it continues to reject calls to combine peace
negotiations with the SRF on Darfur and the Two Areas. Khartoum insists instead on negotiating
separately with the Darfur groups and the SPLM-N.
In January, the ruling party (which controls 90% of parliament) passed three controversial
amendments to the current constitution, including one which enables Bashir to appoint and
relieve state governors, who were elected in 2010 by popular vote. The move toward more
centralized authority in the presidency runs counter to long-standing calls by many opposition
groups for greater devolution of power to the states. Another amendment transformed the
country’s intelligence agency, long linked to the recruitment of proxy militias, into a regular
armed force whose mission is to oversee internal and external national security. It also legitimized
the agency’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The amendments have been widely criticized by
both unarmed and armed opposition groups. The government’s decision to proceed with plans to
hold national elections in April 2015, with Bashir as the ruling party’s presidential candidate, is
highly controversial in the context of the broader dialogue process.
The government is under pressure. Inflation and related economic troubles have fueled periodic
protests in urban centers in recent years, and the wars in Darfur and the Two Areas are expensive.
Protestors have been killed by police on several occasions, notably in September 2013, when as
many as 200 people were killed during a demonstration against a decision to end fuel subsidies.
President Bashir and the NCP also face increasing criticism from some Sudanese Islamists. In late
2013, Ghazi Salahaddin Atabani, then head of the NCP’s parliamentary caucus and a former top
presidential advisor, was expelled from the party along with several other NCP “reformists” after

37 The Bashir government has held elections three times since taking power in 1989: in 1996, 2000, and 2010. The
Carter Center and European Union election monitors declared that the 2010 polls, while largely peaceful, did not meet
international standards.
38 Sudan’s current constitution is an interim constitution that was adopted in July 2005 to reflect changes agreed to by
the parties to the CPA. The government initiated a process for drafting a new constitution in 2011.
Congressional Research Service
10

Sudan

criticizing the government’s response to the fuel subsidy protests. He subsequently formed the
Reform Now Party (RNP). The RNP and another political party, the Popular National Congress
(PNC), led by prominent Islamist and former regime ideologue Hassan al Turabi, represent
Islamist opposition to the ruling Islamist regime. Turabi was an architect of the National Islamic
Front, the political organization behind the 1989 coup, which was later transformed into the NCP
after an internal power struggle between Turabi and Bashir.
Reports of increasing press censorship and the detention of political opponents in the past year
raise additional questions about the regime’s commitment to an inclusive dialogue. Sudan’s
intelligence agency has, on multiple occasions in the past year, seized the newspaper runs of
almost all of Khartoum’s daily newspapers. A prominent political opposition leader, former Prime
Minister Sadiq al Mahdi, who was briefly jailed in mid-2014, has been in exile since signing an
August 2014 accord known as the Paris Declaration and a follow-on agreement known as the
Sudan Call, suggesting that his Umma party (the largest opposition party) would collaborate
politically with the SRF and other opposition groups. Al Mahdi’s daughter Meriam, who serves as
deputy head of the party, was briefly detained after the Paris meeting. In the Paris Declaration, the
SRF declared its readiness to cease hostilities as a basis for a credible national dialogue. The
government has described the subsequent document, the Sudan Call, as “treason.” It outlines a
“joint platform for the transformation of Sudan,” pledging to “dismantle the one-party regime and
replace it with a state founded on equal citizenship, through daily popular struggle, including
popular uprising,” and setting an agenda for political, economic, and social reforms.39 The
agreements are significant in that they bring both armed and unarmed opposition voices together
under a common set of political principles. Farouk Abu Issa, head of the National Consensus
Forces, an alliance of unarmed opposition parties, and Amin Mekki Madani, a prominent civil
society activist, have been in prison since December for signing the Sudan Call.
Many opposition parties and civil society groups have indicated that they will boycott the
National Dialogue until the government creates a more conducive environment for participation,
including through the release of individuals they view as political prisoners and demonstration of
respect for press freedom. Almost all of the major opposition parties, and several prominent Arab
tribal elders, have also announced their intention to boycott the April elections. Several groups
contend that the elections should not be held until the dialogue on the constitution is complete.
Some, including the Umma party, suggest that a unity government be created before polls are
held. It is unclear at this stage how the government will proceed.40
The African Union High-level Implementation Panel (AUHIP), under the leadership of former
South African President Thabo Mbeki and with U.N. support, is charged by the AU with
mediating between Khartoum and the various Sudanese opposition groups. The AUHIP, which
like the U.N. Security Council maintains that Sudan’s various conflicts require a political, rather
than a military solution, has sought to coordinate the various peace processes with the aim of
facilitating the eventual participation of all armed and unarmed groups in the National Dialogue.
The government, meanwhile, has sought to maintain ownership of the dialogue process, but has
conceded to participate in several “pre-dialogue” meetings convened outside Sudan with
opposition representatives. In November 2014, the AUHIP convened its first talks between the
government and the Darfur armed groups in Ethiopia (Qatar had previously hosted most the

39 An English translation of the Sudan Call can be accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/249490588/Sudan-Call-
English.
40See, e.g., International Crisis Group, Sudan: The Prospects for “National Dialogue, Briefing 108, March 11, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
11

Sudan

Darfur negotiations). Those talks, like AUHIP-hosted talks between the SPLM-N and the
government in December, were inconclusive. President Bashir has resisted proposals by Mbeki to
meet under AUHIP auspices with the political parties who have suspended their involvement in
the National Dialogue. In March 2015, the SRF increased pressure for an election postponement,
suggesting it would abandon peace talks if the elections are held as scheduled.
U.S. Policy and Foreign Assistance
U.S.-Sudan relations have long been turbulent. Sudan was seen as a Cold War ally starting in the
late 1970s, but after the 1989 coup that brought Bashir and the National Islamic Front to power,
the United States downgraded diplomatic relations and cut off aid. The Clinton Administration
designated Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993, identifying Sudan as a “rogue state” and
supporting neighboring Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Uganda as “frontline states” to contain Khartoum,
and to provide support to the southern rebellion. In 1996, under Western pressure, Sudan expelled
Osama bin Laden from the country. However, relations between Washington and Khartoum
deteriorated further in August 1998, when, in response to the U.S. embassy bombings in East
Africa, President Clinton ordered the bombing of a Khartoum pharmaceutical factory purportedly
linked to bin Laden. U.S. policy shifted under President George W. Bush to focus on achieving
reforms through increased diplomatic engagement. The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, which had
suspended operations in 1996, reopened in 2002. The United States has not appointed an
ambassador to Sudan since 1997; a chargé d’affaires leads the U.S. embassy, and a special envoy
directs policy in Washington.
The United States maintains various sanctions against Sudan through Executive Orders and
congressionally-imposed legal restrictions. Initial sanctions were imposed in 1988, when
economic and security assistance was frozen because of Sudan’s debt payment arrears to the
United States. Congress proposed additional limits on non-humanitarian aid in 1989 to protest
government restrictions on aid access in southern Sudan, and by 1990 all non-humanitarian aid
was suspended because of the coup. Some sanctions relate to Sudan’s state sponsor of terrorism
designation, others to abuses committed during the north-south war. Trade sanctions were
imposed in 1997. Further sanctions relate specifically to the Darfur conflict, including a
prohibition on U.S. transactions in the petroleum and petrochemicals sectors.41 Under Executive
Orders 13067 (1997), 13400 (April 2006), and 13412 (October 2006), Sudanese government
assets in the United States are frozen and U.S. transactions with the government or with
designated persons involved in the Darfur conflict are prohibited. The FY2015 consolidated
appropriations act (P.L. 113-235) prohibits aid to the government or modification of loans held by
Sudan.
Khartoum seeks to improve its relationship with the United States, in part to boost its
international standing and its efforts to reengage with multilateral financial institutions. (Of the
roughly $45 billion Sudan owes in external sovereign debt, over $2 billion is owed to the United
States.) Efforts to normalize relations appeared to have some momentum in 2011, when Sudan
was the first country to officially recognize South Sudan. They have since been stymied by
several factors, among them the ongoing conflicts in the Two Areas and Darfur. According to U.S.
officials, “the fundamental issue we have in the relationship has to do with the way that the

41 Executive Order 13412, October 13, 2006; the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-344).
Congressional Research Service
12

Sudan

government has treated the people of Sudan, particularly those in the periphery.”42 In Khartoum’s
view, the United States has repeatedly “moved the goalpost” on lifting sanctions, and, in an
expression of its frustration, Khartoum has blocked President Obama’s Special Envoy for Sudan
and South Sudan, Ambassador Donald Booth, from visiting the country since his appointment in
2013. The Obama Administration contends that mistrust and miscommunication hinder efforts to
improve the bilateral dialogue. To that end, in February 2015 the Administration invited one of
President Bashir’s top advisors, Ibrahim Ghandour, to Washington for discussions on how to
advance “a more frequent and substantive exchange about our respective interest and concerns in
the region, including ways to achieve sustainable peace in Sudan.”43
The U.S. Special Envoy has expressed support for the AU effort to facilitate a more cohesive
mediation of Sudan’s various peace talks and to link those talks to an inclusive national dialogue
process. According to Ambassador Booth, “compartmentalized and regional approaches to
peacemaking cannot address grievances and aspirations that are national in character...dialogue
should address fundamental issues of governance, inclusiveness, resource-sharing, identity, and
social equality at a national level.”44 He has described the conflicts in Darfur and the Two Areas
as “symptoms of a common national ill,” and referred to the 2011 establishment of the opposition
SRF alliance as recognition by disparate groups of “the national nature of their struggle and of
any sustainable solution.” The Envoy has encouraged Sudan to engage in confidence-building
measures to signal good faith as it lays the groundwork for the national dialogue.
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has issued two general
licenses in the past year to authorize some activities otherwise prohibited by the Executive Orders
cited above. These licenses allow certain academic and professional exchanges and authorize the
transfer of certain software and services related to personal communications over the Internet.
Sudan remains designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, although the State Department has
described Sudan as “a generally cooperative counterterrorism partner” in its annual Country
Reports on Terrorism in recent years. Per the last report, the Palestinian group Hamas, a U.S.-
designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, continues to have a presence and raise funds in Sudan,
and elements of Al Qaeda-inspired terrorist groups remain in the country. Sudan’s reported role in
Iranian arms smuggling to Gaza is another area of concern. In 2013, the State Department named
three Sudanese nationals involved in the 2008 murder of two USAID employees in Khartoum as
Specially Designated Global Terrorists, subject to sanctions under Executive Order 13224 (2001).
The State Department has designated Sudan a Country of Particular Concern under the
International Religious Freedom Act since 1999. A Christian woman, Meriam Ibrahim Ishaq, was
sentenced to death for apostasy in May 2014, drawing international condemnation; her conviction
was overturned by an appeals court in late June 2014. She subsequently settled in the United
States with her family.

42State Department, Excerpts of Remarks made by U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan Ambassador Donald
Booth on May 22, 2014 in a Telephone Conference Hosted by the African Media Hub, May 26, 2014.
43 State Department, Daily Press Briefing, February 11, 2015.
44 U.S. Special Envoy Donald Booth, “U.S. Policy on Sudan and South Sudan: The Way Forward,” Remarks at the
Atlantic Council in Washington, DC, October 9, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
13

Sudan

Congressional Engagement on U.S. Policy Toward Sudan
Congressional action has often influenced U.S. policy toward Sudan. In 1993, the same year that
the Clinton Administration designated Sudan as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the House of
Representatives recognized the right of the southern Sudanese to self-determination.45 By 1999,
some Members of Congress who were sympathetic to the cause of the southern insurgents
initiated efforts to tighten sanctions. At the same time they pushed to authorize not only food aid
but development assistance, including programs to build local administrative capacity, for areas
outside of Khartoum’s control—namely areas held by the SPLM.46 In 2002, Congress also
appropriated nonlethal assistance for a coalition of armed and unarmed opposition forces
(including the SPLM) to “strengthen its ability to protect civilians from attacks.”47 At the same
time, Congress expressed support for Bush Administration efforts to seek a negotiated settlement
to end Sudan’s north-south civil war.
In 2003, conflict and human rights abuses in Darfur captured international attention and
galvanized a campaign that led Congress and President Bush to accuse Khartoum of genocide and
further tighten sanctions.48 Congress added Darfur to the areas outside government control
eligible to receive U.S. foreign aid and required the President to develop a contingency plan for
delivering relief aid to any areas where the government denied access.49 In 2006, after the north-
south war had ended, Congress enacted additional economic and diplomatic sanctions against
Khartoum to press for a resolution of the Darfur conflict. It also authorized assistance to
implement the north-south agreement, including military aid to support the SPLA’s
transformation from a guerilla movement into a professional army.50 Congress later supported the
efforts of U.S. state and local governments to divest any assets in companies that conduct certain
business operations in Sudan, and required U.S. government contracts to meet similar standards.51
U.S. Assistance
In the years prior to South Sudan’s separation, Sudan ranked among the top destinations for U.S.
foreign aid, with more than $1 billion allocated annually for humanitarian and development aid
and peacekeeping support. Since South Sudan’s independence, development aid for Sudan has
been limited. The State Department and USAID requested $9.5 million for FY2015 to support
civil society and conflict mitigation efforts. The FY2016 request is for $9.1 million in
nonemergency aid. Humanitarian aid totaled $260 million in FY2013, and roughly $312 million
to date in combined FY2014 and FY2015 funding. The State Department’s FY2016 request
includes $366 million for assessed contributions to UNAMID and $92.5 million for UNISFA. It

45 H.Con.Res. 131 also condemned Sudan for its human rights abuses and called for the President to appoint an envoy.
46 The House and Senate separately passed several versions of the Sudan Peace Act (in 1999, 2000, and 2001) before it
became law in October 2002 as P.L. 107-245. It authorized $100 million annually “to the areas of Sudan that are not
controlled by the Government of Sudan to prepare the population for peace and democratic governance, including
support for civil administration, communications infrastructure, education, health, and agriculture.”
47 The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2002, P.L. 107-115. H.Rept.
107-142 also stated that the Administration “can and should do more to support the democratic opposition in Sudan.”
48 The 108th Congress declared the Sudanese government’s actions in Darfur to constitute genocide in the House with
passage of H.Con.Res. 467 (422-0) and in the Senate with the adoption of S.Con.Res. 133, (by Unanimous Consent).
49 The Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004, P.L. 108-497.
50 The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006, P.L. 109-344.
51 The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, P.L. 110-174.
Congressional Research Service
14

Sudan

also includes a request for transfer authority to allocate funds for bilateral debt relief for Sudan
under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, should Sudan meet the
requirements to qualify. As noted above, P.L. 113-235, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2015, prohibits funding for modifying loans and loan guarantees held by the Sudanese
government.
Table 1. State Department and USAID Assistance to Sudan, by Account
($ in thousands)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2013
Actual
Estimate
Request
Request
Economic Support Fund
10,708
9,197
9,500
9,149
P.L. 480 Title II
142,470



Source: State Department FY2015 and FY2016 Congressional Budget Justifications for Foreign Operations. This
table does not include al emergency humanitarian assistance provided in Sudan.
Conclusion
The United States has found itself pursuing multiple, and at times conflicting, aims in Sudan.
Balancing these objectives has occasionally placed Congress and the Executive Branch at odds.
Ending the human suffering and related human rights violations associated with Sudan’s distinct
but overlapping conflicts has been the overarching goal of U.S. policymakers for more than two
decades. With finite attention and resources, however, U.S. policy toward Sudan has at times over
the years appeared to prioritize resolving one conflict at the expense of another. Negotiating
humanitarian access to communities by the conflicts has required compromise, and sometimes
has moderated calls for a more confrontational approach toward Bashir’s regime. Similarly, U.S.
pursuit of counterterrorism objectives in the broader region has led successive Administrations to
seek dialogue and cooperation from Khartoum.
Peace and stability in Sudan remains among the highest of U.S. foreign policy priorities in Africa,
yet this goal remains elusive. Critics of Sudanese peace negotiations suggest that piecemeal
approaches to Sudan’s overlapping conflicts have prolonged the country’s seemingly chronic
instability. In recent years, the United States has increasingly called for a comprehensive
agreement that promotes democratic reform and “lasting peace throughout all of Sudan.” African
Union mediators have expressed a similar sentiment since 2013, recommending that possible
solutions for the Two Areas conflict “be explored in the context of national democratization and
constitutional reform in Sudan.”52 Khartoum has long resisted efforts to combine discussions with
various opponents to the regime, preferring to negotiate separately with the SPLM and the
SPLM-N, the Darfur groups, and others. This approach has yielded some positive outcomes, but
it has also resulted in partially implemented agreements that do not fully address regional
grievances or resolve disputes that are fundamentally national issues. Proposal for a national
dialogue may hold some promise for a new approach, but deteriorating security conditions in
Darfur, ongoing conflict in the Two Areas, and continued violations of basic rights and freedoms
across the country have not engendered trust among Khartoum’s critics.

52 Report of the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan and South Sudan, July 31, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
15

Sudan

The United States faces a complex range of policy options as it considers the way forward for
engagement with Sudan. Members of Congress may debate whether they concur with the
Administration’s current approach or wish to guide U.S. policy in a different direction. Previous
congressional action on Sudan may provide lessons and examples. Advocates and experts may
have new ideas on the merits of various “carrots” and “sticks,” or other policy options to promote
peace and stability and discourage serious human rights abuses in the country. While annual aid
appropriations measures continue to include provisions restricting U.S. aid to the government of
Sudan, Congress has not passed standalone Sudan legislation since 2007 (prior to the outbreak of
the conflict in the Two Areas). During the 113th Congress, the House of Representatives
considered, but did not pass, new punitive measures on Sudan under H.R. 1692, the Sudan Peace,
Security, and Accountability Act of 2013. The 114th Congress may consider similar legislation, or
explore other legislative or oversight efforts to influence the direction of U.S. engagement.



Author Contact Information

Lauren Ploch Blanchard

Specialist in African Affairs
lploch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7640


Congressional Research Service
16