Influence of interest groups on American policy-making
The political system in the US is unique in many ways. One of them is the influence on the superpower’s policies exerted by many lobbies for various issues and countries. In the case of Sudan, for instance, several lobbies from the Christians to Black Caucus, NGOs to even celebrities became very much involved and siding blindly with the South Sudan seen as the victim and commanding the high moral ground.
That rainbow managed to put Sudan as a foreign policy priority despite the fact Sudan is not by any measure of any significant political, economic or strategic importance to the United States. The Bush administration, eying its Christian base electorate, invested time and efforts to broker the Sudan peace deal back in 2005, which came to be its only foreign policy achievement throughout his two terms, eight years in office. It was built on by the Obama administration, which took South Sudan to independence and be the world’s newest state.
That push for separation is seen as contrary to advice forwarded by professional diplomats, who argued that it is in the interest of the United States to keep Sudan united mainly for two reasons: To restrict the country from sliding more into extremism, which could have regional implications given the geographical and strategic position of Sudan. The second reason is that Washington will be morally responsible to shore up the new poor country.
Former US senator and special envoy to Sudan John Danforth once said, “One Sudan is enough” in reference to problems awaiting the new country and the responsibility of the United States to support it. He was of the opinion that the South be given more powers to rule itself within a united Sudan.
But political calculations went the other way pushed by the lobbies, the Senate and the Congress.
However, six months after South Sudan got its independence, it got into a problem its friends could not comprehend till now: Shutting down its oil production in an a bid to undermine Sudan and hopefully enforce a regime change. That could be understood except for the simple fact that oil income constitutes 98 percent of South Sudan income.
That decision is seen by many as a reflection of the rebel mentality that continues to dominate the leadership in Juba. Its only aim is to hurt Khartoum, even if it is hurting Juba at the same time.
The South Sudan supportive lobbies in the US were seen not very far from the decision. On the face of it the decision to shut down oil production and deny Khartoum transit fees after losing more than two thirds of oil reserves was seen as a golden opportunity to topple the Sudan regime. Anti-austerity measures demonstrations seen by Sudan last month were taken as the first step along the way for change.
But that is coming at a heavy price as the collapse of South Sudan as a state is becoming a real possibility in just matter of months and probably before the end of the year. That is why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Juba for a 3-hour short trip, where she delivered a stern message to Juba to conclude an oil deal pointing out that Washington will not be on its way to bail it out.
The negotiating team, which reached the agreement, is at pain trying to explain to its people that agreement was to their interest, but more interesting is that it lashed at Washington, London and other Western capitals for siding with Khartoum.
It may be just rhetoric or a way to call its friends in these capitals to come to its rescue, but the lesson learned is that Washington is finally resorting to some sense and forcing its interests, pressuring its friends in Juba to forge ahead and try to work out some kind of peaceful relationship with Sudan for a better life of the people of the two countries.
The game is not over yet. South Sudan is finding it difficult to swallow the oil deal, while Sudan links accepting the agreement to other issues, mainly security. And that is where the real test for the US lies that is to show that whether its policy in this regard will continue to be influenced by lobbies or managed by professionals looking after their country’s interests.
-
- This article is exclusive to Arab News
Email: [email protected]
