Crafting foreign policy that helps the weak.

How does a nation help the weak with its foreign policy? Foreign policy is a high wire balancing act. One slight shift to the left and a nation can isolate itself thereby turning a blind eye to international injustices. One slight shift to the right and a nation can imperialistically dominate another nation under the guise of 'liberating' oppressed peoples.

Consider Sudan with me. The foreign policy options basically boil down to either using diplomacy or violent force. Violent force has been approved at the UN mediated level and is in the process of being implemented to protect internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. There is no doubt that this UN force alone would not enough to end the violence in Sudan. Consequently a foreign policy is needed to add pressure on the Khartoum regime. Many people in America are in favor of employing divestment strategies to financially punish the regime until they stop the genocide in Darfur. In this post I will question the efficacy of such a foreign policy tactic.

Most recently the House passed the Sudan Divestment Act of 2007 (HR180) and passed it onto the Senate for approval. Basically this act would allow state governments, municipalities and universities to divest their retirement funds from companies with: a) any investment in the Sudanese government or weaponry; b) more than 10% of their investments in Sudanese oil, minerals or power generation. Additionally the act would prohibit the US government from contracting for goods and services with any such company described above. Currently the Bush administration is opposed to the legislation stating that it would handcuff its diplomatic options to utilize Lybia in helping end the violence in Darfur. I am unsure to what extent that is true, but if Lybian companies stand to loose significant revenue through the act I could imagine how the act would prove to be a diplomatic obstacle for the administration to overcome.

Folks in the Divest Sudan camp often cite South Africa as their example of successful sanctioning. While sanctions worked very well in South Africa during the 1980's I have my reservations about employing them in this situation. As long as sanctions remain unilateral or lightly multilateral, the Khartoum regime will find ways to utilize the trade embargo as a way to impoverish the oppressed in Sudan and continue to enjoy an affluent lifestyle via the financial support of others countries like China. This thought about unilateral sanctions bears out well in research published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "...unilateral U.S. sanctions in place from 1970-2000 were effective only 19 percent of the time" (Taken from the testimony of William A. Reinsch before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs).

That being said, then, what options are left for US foreign policy? I would suggest that the Bush administration and Congress work toward building an internationally viable sanction of the Khartoum regime. Even if the scope of this sanction is smaller than the proposed Divestment Act it would provide the basis for future collaboration between nations on the Darfur crisis. With coordinated sanctions, Khartoum will also have less wiggle room to avoid the effects of those sanctions.

As a side thought I wonder if it might not be a productive activity for the diplomatic wing of the Bush administration to pause for a moment and consider Khartoum to be a legitimate sovereign government with legitimate political concerns about its own survival. Threatened by 'domestic terrorists' (the Justice and Equality Movement & the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army) from within who frequently attack military equipment and personnel. Facing outright civil war as the South threatens to take up military action through its own rebel forces. Threatened to the west by Chad who's government has been at odds with Khartoum all along and medals in the Darfur conflict by equipping and funding Darfurian rebels. Threatened to the east by Africa's largest army, the Ethiopian army which has been building up for years and most recently has invaded Somalia. Perhaps it would be good for those who will perform face-to-face diplomacy with Bashir to consider for a moment that he is a bit like a scared animal who fearing for its life thrashes out at all who come near to his place of power. Perhaps with this mentality diplomats might be able to set out a couple of carrots to motivate Bashir and his government to move in the right direction. Carrots like the offer of Lybian protection against Chad and US diplomatic protection from Ethiopia. Just a thought from a humble American worker who doesn't really know anything about diplomacy.