With an area approximately a third of the size of the US, Sudan is Africa's largest country. Sudan has Arab and Islamic ties to the Middle East and Africa, and is pulled in various directions: north, toward the Arabs; west, to the Sahel; east, to the Horn; and south, to the Great Lakes.[6] However, due to its cultural, racial, and religious identity, Islam in the Sudan has become closely associated with Arabism.[7] Thus, the country is often included in the regional Middle Eastern political geography and its significant role and place in Africa is generally ignored.[8] With over 36 million people, of whom 70 percent are Muslim and the rest Christian and Traditionalist, and a nation of numerous ethnic groups, Sudan is riven by ethnic loyalties to region and groups. Upon achieving independence in 1956, the Arab-led government reneged on promises to create a federal system, which led to an uprising by southern military officers. This sparked one of the world's longest-running civil crises, which had disastrous humanitarian consequences.

The origin of the Sudanese crisis goes back to the period of colonization (1898-1956), whereby the north and the south were governed as two separate administrations. The northerners and southerners were kept apart and uninte-grated within the border of the new state of Sudan. The seeds of ethnic polarization were further ingrained when the British perpetuated the dualism by encouraging separate identity and development with the educational system Arabized, and Islam as the source of moral code and law. The colonial government focused on developing the economy and infrastructure of the north while ignoring southern development. Although Westernized and exposed to Western pluralism and secularism, the south remains one of the world's most undeveloped places. Since the British departure in 1956, the north and south have been left divided, and thrive on mutual antagonism and struggle for survival. The war went on except for a 10-year pause following the 1972 Addis Ababa agreement, leading to a cessation of the conflict and a degree of self-rule. Prime Minister Gaafar Mohammed Nimeiri's (1969-85) attempt to impose the Sharia law and turn Sudan's society into a Muslim Arab state led to the resumption of the civil war in 1983. The conflict continued until the ceasefire and Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Sudanese government and John Garang's Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) in Nairobi, Kenya, signed on 9 January 2005. Unfortunately, Vice-President Garang's death on 31 July 2005 endangered the CPA and thereby increased the probability that the genocide in Darfur would accelerate. Central to the CPA are the issues of the relationship between religion and state, the right to self-determination for the south, power and wealth sharing, security agreements, and whether Khartoum, the capital, should be spared the Sharia laws.[9]

Hassan al-Turabi, a powerful Sudanese cleric, religious leader, and influential actor in Sudan's foreign policy, made the implementation of a strict form of Sharia in Sudan a major priority of his political agenda. His influence dates further back to when he served as Attorney General in the Nimeiri administration where he assisted in the implementation of Nimeiri's declaration of the Sharia law as the sole law in Sudan. Turabi has been described as the "de facto ruler of Sudan"[10] following the coup led by Omar Hassan al-Bashir in 1989. At the time of the coup, Bashir's Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) had no vision, ideological inclination, and very limited political experience. The RCC was groomed by the National Islamic Front (NIF) founded by Turabi in 1985. The 1989 coup was a personal victory for Turabi as he could finally impose his political vision on the country.[11] It is against this background that one can begin to grasp the course of Sudan's foreign policy, through the power behind the throne.[12]

Bashir's radical and militant foreign policy stance against the US could be seen in light of his movement along the path of politicized Islam, and political backing by his mentor, Muslim Brother leader Turabi.[13] As such, Sudan's foreign policy approach under Bashir's administration has largely been influenced by Turabi's doctrine and teaching.

Soon after the coup [led by Al-Bashir in 1989] the junta quietly handed power to Turabi and his Islamist Brethren in the National Islamic Front, a political group that had grown out of the Muslim Brotherhood. This was done by turning to Turabi for guidance, and inviting his operatives to infiltrate the civil bureaucracy and the military — creating, in effect, a shadow government. Turabi himself, despite his obvious authority, remains in what might be called the foreground of the background.[14]

Turabi has been featured largely as a "cosmopolitan, multilingual, modern, Islamist whose theories about the nature and feature of the Islamist state became highly regarded in Islamist circles and feared by military and monarchical regimes in the Arab-Islamic world and were rejected in the West as undemocratic and not in conformity with the Western notion of 'civil society'."[15]

As spiritual leader of Sudan's military government, Turabi's major objective was to infuse Islamic principles into the government. Thus, Sudan, under Turabi's influence, wanted a return to pure Islam and to replace secular civil law with Islamic law.[16] Turabi's fundamentalist ideology views modern states in the Islamic world as an illegitimate, immoral division of the umma (the community of believers) and the world as two broad but distinct spheres, the non-Islamic world and the community of believers. Borders in the Islamic world are perceived as lacking legitimacy as they are colonial creations. Therefore, as Turabi explained, "The international dimension of the Islamic movement is conditioned by the universality of the umma . . . and the artificial irrelevancy of Sudan's borders."[17] Turabi tried to focus Sudan's foreign policy on the notion that the community of believers is a close knit political unit, not expansionist toward the Western world or non-Muslim world, and stops where Islam stops.

Fundamentalist ideology suggests that terrorism is a last resort rather than the norm, and where terrorism occurs it is perceived as retaliation for "infringement of the territorial integrity of the umma by the United States or other Western nations."[18] It is not violence directed against the non-Islamic world, nor "is the assistance that Iran and Sudan give to fundamentalist insurgencies directed against the West as much as it is directed against governments that Islamic ideologies perceive to be un-Islamic."[19] In other words, terrorism is directed at a non-Muslim state or entity that is believed to cooperate in the on-going division of the umma. As Zachary Karabell argued, the US may attempt to accommodate fundamentalism but to contain it will almost certainly fail.[20] In the US, for example, the Clinton administration, like other US governments, claimed that it opposed violence, extremism, and terrorism but not Islam.

During the Turabi period Sudan's foreign policy was antagonistic toward the US.[21] Therefore, as Karabell asserts, the aim of the fundamentalist foreign policy was not to undermine Western nations or destroy them but to attempt to compete globally for prestige, influence, and power.[22] Karabell adds that:

The more U.S. foreign policy seeks global power and the greater the demand for an international system of liberal democracies, the greater will be the threat posed by an Islamic fundamentalism that adamantly and violently rejects that hegemony and the norms of Liberalism. If U.S. goals remain relatively limited and the United States attends to issues such as global prosperity and domestic security, then Islamic fundamentalism should not be considered a threat to the United States.[23]

In this regard, Sudan opposed the Middle East peace process24 and wished the US presence removed in the region.

When Turabi referred to the Sudanese model, he viewed Islam as a state and a religion where the Islamic movement began as elitist and then developed into a popular movement. Likewise, he viewed the Islamic movement as political and religious as well as revolutionary. The Arab-Islamic Sudanese model condemns Western values and institutions, which promote secularization, including the separation of religion and the state. Turabi blamed the separation of politics and Islam on Western imperialism, which "disestablished Islam, destroyed public institutions and replaced the Sharia with French or British positive law."[25]

Turabi saw the Islamic movements as threats to Muslim governments and the present world order because Islam purports to safeguard Islamic values and seeks to correct existing inequalities, and because it seeks justice, "Islam will challenge those who enjoy an advantage under the present world order, in economic relations between north and south, in the U.N. structure, in the monopoly of information, technology or armaments."[26] As a national doctrine, Islam asserts individual values and independence from the West. Turabi questioned US opposition to radical interpretations of Islam exported to other nations, adding that, if the US should attempt to crush the Sudanese Islamic fundamentalist model, such a move would necessitate strong opposition. The Americans, Turabi asserted, are unlikely to pursue such an enterprise, as this would provoke a great Jihad and the Sudanese would turn into terrorists and target Americans.[27] From a foreign policy stance, Turabi argued that it appears that the

Islamic movement is a growing force throughout the Middle East, and the Sudanese model enjoys great popularity among the Arab masses for its Islamic stands on foreign-policy issues. The Gulf War was a blessing in disguise because it turned the Islamist movements into mass movements and radicalized Islam in Saudi Arabia. The Islamic masses have taken control and many governments and movements are being undermined. They must go or perish.[28]

According to Karabell, "Sudan's al-Turabi has donned the mantle of Islamic revolution, but Sudanese society is not undergoing revolutionary transformation."[29] Ironically, Sudan's leaders, including Turabi, pursue a radical Muslim dream and see themselves as progressive, but instead of the proposed enlightenment, they have delivered a nightmare, according to William Langewiesche.[30] The political sidelining of Turabi,[31] who had been the international symbol of Islamic extremism and the cause of the regime's international isolation, affected Sudan-US relations.[32] The US, under a new Bush administration, contemplated the re-establishment of relations with Sudan. As a result, a low-level diplomatic presence was established in the fall of 2000 as new sympathies with the Christian and anti-slavery movements in the south emerged.[33] Having thus analyzed the role of Turabi and his Islamic model as a force in Sudan's foreign policy, the following section will examine US-Sudan's relations from 1956 to 2006.

Sudan had been jointly under Anglo-Egyptian administration rule since 1898. In 1956, it achieved independence from Egypt and the United Kingdom. Upon independence, the US was one of the first powers to extend recognition to the new country. US interest in the Sudan rested on ending the country's war in Darfur, fostering democratic norms, religious and cultural tolerance, and ongoing assistance in the counter-terrorist effort. For the most part, US-Sudan relations have been characterized by ups and downs tainted by the Cold War, Arab-Israeli tensions, the war in southern Sudan, support for international terrorism, human rights abuses, and what US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, termed "genocide" in Darfur.

Upon independence in 1956, relations between the US and Sudan started off well until the country embraced the policy of nonalignment.[34] Sudan's relationship with Egypt was not looked upon favorably by the US as the country turned to the Soviet camp in 1955. The new government in Sudan distrusted and resented US support for Israel and perceived the superpower as the new colonial power following Great Britain. As Donald Petterson explained, "Early on, Khartoum was wary of the United States and of Egypt and the Soviet Union as well. Because Sudan would not take the US side in its Cold War struggle with the USSR, Washington was cool toward Khartoum."[35] However, the US sought to halt Soviet influence in the region and therefore favorably responded to the Khartoum government's 1957 request for technical and economic assistance. Many in the Sudanese government, particularly the pro-Egyptian and left-wing groups opposed US assistance, and Vice-President Richard Nixon was welcomed with anti-US demonstrations during his March 1957 visit. Nevertheless, total US financial assistance from the late 1950s to 1967 amounted to $103 million, provided mainly for education, transport, and agriculture.[36]

In 1958, Sudan experienced a military coup, which led to the overthrow of the country's civilian government of Prime Minister Abdallah Khalil.[37] In fact, throughout the country's history, from independence to 1989, Sudan experienced periods of instability with intermittent civilian and military governments. The various administrations faced problems of factionalism, a weak economy, and ethnic dissidence. Following the military takeover by General Ibrahim Abboud in 1958, Sudan did not take the side of the US in its ideological struggle with the Soviet Union but, like its predecessor, established closer links with Abdul Nasser's Egyptian government who had close ties with the Soviet Union. To make matters worse, it expelled 300 foreign missionaries in 1964.[38] Abboud stepped down in 1964 following a strike and dissension within the military.

The second civilian government came into existence in 1964, first under Prime Minister al-Sirr al-Khalifa (1964-67), and then under the then-30-year-old Sadiq al-Mahdi (1967-69). Sudan continued to enjoy a cordial and enhanced relationship with the Soviet Union, which provided it with some 2000 mostly military advisors, accounted for 18 percent of imports, and acquired 25 percent of Sudan's export. In addition, as an Arab League member, relations with other members remained a key feature of Sudan's foreign policy. Thus, siding with the Arab nations and accusing the US of complicity with Israel, Sudan declared war on Israel in June 1967 and broke diplomatic relations with Washington. With this, the US presence in Khartoum was reduced to a few diplomats housed in the Netherland's embassy.

Sudan again experienced political instability when its democratically elected government of the second civilian administration of Muhammad Ahmad Mahjub was toppled in a 1969 military coup led by Colonel Ja'far Nimeiri. Following the coup, there was no change in US-Sudan relations. Nimeiri supported Nasser's pan-Arabism and, like Egypt, established close ties with the Soviet Union, which provided Sudan with arms. However, in 1971, a dramatic shift occurred when Nimeiri suspected Soviet involvement in a 1971 communist attempt against his government. This resulted in a break in Sudanese-Soviet relations, as Nimeiri aligned his country with the US against objections from Egypt and the Arab nations. Moreover, Sudan's new alliance with the US also stemmed from a long-felt threat by the political ambitions of Ethiopia and Libya.[39] Nevertheless, Washington welcomed this new gesture as it poured in $18 million for the resettlement of refugees and rehabilitation of the war-torn south. Unfortunately, in 1973, Palestinian terrorists murdered the new US ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel, his deputy, Curtis Moore, and Belgian Chargé d'Affaires Guy Eid.[40] Nimeiri's government sentenced the culprits to life imprisonment in Sudan. However, owing to mounting pressure, Nimeiri commuted the sentences of the assassins in 1974, which to the US was tantamount to freeing the terrorists.[41] Nimeiri's action resulted in strained relations between the two as Washington recalled its ambassador.

Sudan's geopolitical location rendered it the target of revolving-door superpower intervention during much of the Cold War. In the face of Soviet expansion in the Horn of Africa in the mid-1970s, and with the incorporation of Ethiopia into the Soviet sphere of influence, the US sought to limit the spread of communism in the Horn. As a result, Washington's relations with Nimeiri began to improve and Sudan became a bastion against communism. Nimeiri's support of the US-sponsored Camp David Peace Accords of 1979 between Israel and Egypt, its cooperation during Operation MOSES, in which thousands of Ethiopian Jews were airlifted via Sudan to Israel, and his hostility toward Libya, earned him generous military and economic assistance. This was evident during the Carter and succeeding Reagan administrations, which provided Sudan with $100 million in military aid and $160 million in annual economic assistance, thus making Sudan the top recipient of US aid in sub-Saharan Africa in 1982.[42] During the Chadian war in the 1980s, Sudan allowed the US to fly weapons from Cairo to Khartoum to El Fasher for onward shipment to Chadian forces fighting Libya and, also, the CIA had a station in El Fasher.

In the early 1980s, Nimeiri's government faced growing internal unrest as it failed to ameliorate the severe economic hardship intensified by drought, famine, fuel, and food shortages. In addition to his arbitrary rule, including the implementation of strict Sharia laws in 1983, advocating such punishments as the amputation of limbs for stealing[43] and public flogging for alcohol consumption, inept management of the economy and the famine caused by the 1984 drought led to mass discontent and crystallized opposition, which led to his downfall. Moreover, the hanging of Mahmoud Taha, the Republican Brother's Reformist Movement leader who was condemned for apostasy, also triggered Nimieri's downfall. Furthermore, the situation was worsened by Nimeiri's imposition of austerity measures advocated by the US and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Ironically, as Washington's relations with Nimeiri's Sudan peaked, his popularity at home fell precipitously. Finally, following a mass riot, Nimeiri, while in Washington seeking more economic assistance, was toppled by a military coup in April 1985. Nevertheless, under Nimeiri, the US and Sudan experienced, for the most part, closer relations during the Reagan administration. Vice-President George Bush, Sr., had visited Sudan in March 1985, just before Nimeiri's ouster.

Nimeiri's overthrow was a setback for US-Sudanese relations. Sudan's new military leader, General Suwar al-Dhahab, and his Transitional Military Council (TMC), viewed past American support for Nimeiri suspiciously, particularly his support for the Camp David Accords, hostility toward Libya, introduction of the joint military exercise Operation BRIGHT STAR, and his sanction and facilitating of the America-supported airlift of some 7000 Ethiopian Jews via Sudan to Egypt. Therefore, Dhahab moved away from his predecessor's close relationship with the US, embraced the policy of neutrality, and developed closer ties with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Dhahab alienated the US by discarding Nimeiri's anti-Libyan policies and improving relations with Ethiopia. Libya and Sudan signed a military agreement in 1985.[44] The Reagan administration displayed increasing irritation and grew worried about the presence of Libyan and "other known terrorists" in Sudan.[45] As a result, US-Sudanese relations reached a low point in November 1985, when the State Department urged Americans not to travel to Sudan, as the country had become a base for Libyan and other terrorists.[46] The State Department reassigned 45 American embassy officials and dependents (about 10 percent of the mission staff were sent to other US embassies), as well as planned future cuts in the diplomatic corps in Khartoum. US concern over the growing presence of Libyan and other terrorists, along with the dismantling of Nimeiri's dreaded security apparatus (expert surveillance), signaled to Washington that Sudan might be veering away from its traditional Western and Egyptian supporters. Relations further deteriorated following the US bombing of Libya on 15 April 1986.[47] A day later, William J. Calkins, a US embassy communications officer in Sudan, was shot in the head.[48] Subsequently, the US ambassador to Sudan ordered the evacuation of all non-essential American Embassy employees and their families out of Sudan.

Following the April 1986 elections, the Dhahab government relinquished power to the new civilian leadership of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi. US ambassador to Sudan, G. Norman Anderson (1986-89), visited Mahdi to express Reagan's support for Sudan's democratic process and his readiness to assist the country. The Ambassador also warned Sudan that improved relations with Libya, Ethiopia, and the Soviet Union would not be at America's expense.[49] Washington also expressed security concerns over Americans in Sudan and the continued presence of Libyan "terrorists." On the other hand, Mahdi acknowledged the need for cordial relations with Washington but, at the same time, expressed his country's interest in maintaining non-alignment. On October 1986, he visited Washington but was disappointed when he could not meet President Reagan. To maintain Sudan's independence and non-alignment stance, Mahdi requested the removal of US equipment (light transport vehicles, hospital supplies, and equipment) from Port Sudan.[50] He hoped that eliminating America's presence in Port Sudan would improve relations with the Soviet Union, Ethiopia, and Libya. Even though Mahdi's government pursued a non-alignment policy during much of his tenure, relations with the US remained important, as Washington continued to be a major donor of humanitarian assistance.

However, in June 1989, a group of army officers, labeled the "Revolution of National Salvation," led by Umar Hasan al-Bashir, and backed by the Muslim Brother leader Turabi, ousted the country's third democratically elected government. Bashir's National Islamic Front (NIF)-backed government became a target of global criticism and increasing American opposition.[51] US-Sudan relations reached their lowest point during Bashir's regime. Under pressure from Turabi, he instituted a radical, extremist, and ideological government based on the Sharia law. As was stated earlier, Bashir was a disciple of Turabi, the power behind the revolution.

The US was disturbed by the Bashir government's policy with regards to human rights violations in the southern war, its association with Iran, and its assistance to various terrorist networks, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.[52] Bashir's Islamist regime faced the challenge of reconciling "their religious legitimacy and basis of power with diversity and conflicting value systems within the nation-state and the still interdependent world."[53] However, following the toppling of the elected civilian government of Mahdi in 1989, the US terminated all military and economic assistance programs to Sudan but continued to provide humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons through its Agency for International Development. Bashir perceived this as unfriendly and accused the US of interference in the country's internal affairs. The US responded by accusing Khartoum of hindering foreign aid distribution and seizing relief supplies. Consequently, given the existing political environment and tension between Khartoum and Washington, the Bashir government mistrusted US motives when the US proposed a peace initiative to end the north-south civil war. In May 1990, Bashir rejected US proposals for a ceasefire. His anti-Western stance, support for Iraq during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war, and criticism of the presence of Western forces on Islamic holy lands further strained relations between the two nations. In February 1991, the US withdrew its embassy personnel and closed its embassy in Khartoum.

US frustration with Sudan further grew when it falsely alleged that Sudan was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. During the Clinton administration, the US believed Sudan supported international terrorism and declared it a "rogue state" along with Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya, placing Sudan on the state sponsors of terror list on 12 August 1993.[54] This was done because of the presence of foreign terrorists in Sudan.

Following Sudan's classification as a state sponsor of terrorism, Washington froze Sudanese assets in US banks, imposed comprehensive economic and financial sanctions that restricted exports and imports from the Sudan (with the glaring exception of gum Arabic), and banned US investments and financial transactions in the country. In calling for the sanctions, the Clinton administration stated that "the policies and actions of the government of Sudan, including continued support for international terrorism, ongoing efforts to destabilize neighboring governments, the prevalence of human rights violations, including slavery and the denial of religious freedom, constitute an extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."[55] Early in 1996, the US withdrew its diplomatic and intelligence personnel and moved its embassy "offshore" to Nairobi for security concerns.[56] Marilyn Albright, then US ambassador to the United Nations, called Sudan a "viper's nest of terrorism."[57] At US insistence and pressure, Khartoum asked Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network al-Qaeda to leave Sudan.[58] The US upheld the UN Security Council resolution banning senior Sudanese government officials from entering the US. Washington also provided some $20 million in surplus military equipment ("non-lethal") to Ethiopia, Uganda, and Eritrea, all affected by the destabilizing campaign of the Bashir government.[59]

In turn, Sudan viewed America's support of regional actors in the Horn of Africa as an attempt to punish, destabilize, and facilitate the downfall of the Bashir government.[60] Some Sudanese citizens' perception of the US assertion of Khartoum's involvement in a genocidal war in Darfur, coupled with the statement that Sudan posed a threat to its neighbors, and its classification as a sponsor of international terrorism, stemmed from the fear of Sudan's Islamist political agenda or more likely Islamphobia. As William Langewiesche remarked, "Scorned as fundamentalists by their opponents, the Sudanese leaders prefer a less loaded label — they call themselves Islamists. Since coming to power in 1989, they have turned their nation into the second radical Islamic state, after Iran. Their success in attaining power has had compelling effects on all of North Africa and much of the Middle East, where many countries teeter on the brink of their own Islamic revolutions. This has disturbed the West."[61]

Nevertheless, in response to the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, on 20 August 1998, believed to be orchestrated by bin Laden, the US launched a Tomahawk cruise missile strike against suspected bases in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that the US claimed was making chemical weapons. In defending US action, President Clinton contended:

. . . I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.[62]

The US claimed to have concrete evidence that the al-Shifa factory was being used in connection with the production of chemical weapons and that bin Laden's terrorist network used it for the production of the deadly nerve agent,VX. The US further claimed that financial transactions linked bin Laden to the plant and that soil samples secretly collected outside the plant contained traces of EMPTA (a precursor chemical for VX).[63] However, the Sudanese government denied that al-Shifa or any other facility had been used to produce chemical weapons.[64] It claimed that the factory was a pharmaceutical plant producing malaria medicine for many African nations and that it was not connected to or financed by bin Laden. Furthermore, the Sudanese contended that the bombing of al-Shifa was based on false accusations and poor intelligence. Independent tests conducted by the Chair of the Chemistry Department at Boston University, who headed a team to Sudan to investigate the plant, gave it a clean bill of health. His report concluded that based on the soil samples taken around the factory, and "To the practical limits of scientific detection, there was no EMPTA."[65]

Following the cruise missile attack, relations between the two countries were close to the breaking point as Sudan withdrew many of its diplomats from Washington. Khartoum called several times for a UN investigation into the bombing and argued that, rather than the US becoming the world police, it was in favor of a multilateral approach to global problem-solving through the offices of the UN. Some Wilsonian idealists would agree with this view: "That peace depends on the expansion of democracy, not on a balance of power, that adherence to international law rather than the accumulation of power is a nation's most vital interest, and that national security is best guaranteed, not by alliance systems, but by a universal world organization committed to the defense of every nation-state through collective security."[66]

Although the Clinton administration succeeded in isolating and containing Sudan with financial and economic sanctions, the US made little headway in ending the country's civil war and did not significantly weaken Bashir's Khartoum government or improve Sudan's humanitarian crisis. Along these lines, the Director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, J. Stephen Morrison, argued that the US policy of unilateral isolation and containment of the Khartoum government failed to achieve desired results. Morrison noted that:

Throughout the Clinton era, U.S. policy did not match means to ends. Ambiguities persisted over true U.S. intentions: whether the preeminent U.S. aim was to force a regime change, to press for reform of Khartoum, or to achieve a sustainable end to Sudan's war. The United States pursued these multiple ambitions simultaneously, with little attention paid to whether regime change was achievable or how these diverse and seemingly contradictory policies would be reconciled. These ambiguities encouraged the mistaken belief in Khartoum that the United States was engaged in a covert war to overthrow the Sudanese government.[67]

In 1999, Sudan's ambassador to Washington, Mahdi Ibrahim, noted his country's new posture of a strong stand against US intervention in Sudan's internal affairs. The ambassador indicated that Sudan would mobilize the Arab, Islamic, and African nations against America's trend of intervening in the domestic affairs of Islamic and Arab nations. He insisted that America's persistence in intervening in Sudan's internal affairs was disguised under the umbrella of human rights.[68] What Ibrahim alluded to as intervention was US humanitarian assistance. During the periods of the hostile relationship between the two nations, the US, through its Agency for International Development, provided millions of dollars for humanitarian relief efforts.[69] Furthermore, in late 1999, the Clinton administration, aside from the provision of food aid, reportedly supplied weapons to the southern rebel movement, the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) led by John Garang. Thus, through the 1990s, Sudan-US relations grew increasingly hostile as many American officials perceived Khartoum as the principal threat to US interests in East Africa. In 2000, the US prevented Sudan from succeeding Namibia as the African member of the ten non-permanent Security Council members, and defeated efforts to lift UN sanctions against Sudan, which had been imposed following the June 1995 attempted assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa. The culprits had fled to Sudan.[70]

However, since the September 2001 attack, relations have improved between the two nations as will be discussed in the section on 9/11. As a signal that the US appeared ready to improve relations, the US abstained from the lifting of UN sanctions against Khartoum because it was cooperating in counterterrorist efforts, including the provision of intelligence. In that same year, 2001, President Bush appointed Senator John Danforth, first as his Special Envoy to the Sudan, and later as US Special Envoy to the UN to facilitate the southern peace process. Khartoum reacted unfavorably following the passage of the Sudan Peace Act insisting that the US had passed one resolution after another to punish the government of Sudan. On 13 June 2001, the House of Representatives passed the Sudan Peace Act intended to speed up the relief effort and achieve a comprehensive solution to the war in the south. The act forbade foreign oil companies with oil operations in Sudan from selling stock or other securities in the US.[71] The Sudan Act, enacted on 21 October 2002, stipulated that if Khartoum failed to engage in good faith negotiation with the SPLA and did not refrain from unreasonable interference with relief efforts, the president upon consulting with Congress should take the following measures:

• Seek a UN Security Council resolution for an arms embargo on the Sudanese government;

• Instruct US executive directors to vote against and actively oppose loans, credits, and guarantees by international financial institutions;

• Take all necessary and appropriate steps to deny Sudan government access to oil revenues in order to ensure that the funds are not used for military purposes;

• Consider downgrading or suspending diplomatic relations.[72]

However, the Sudanese peace process in Kenya, held under the aegis of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD),[73] was sustained by high-level US engagement, heightened diplomacy, and senior leadership. This led to six major accords between the north and the south, including the Machakos agreement (separating church from state and granting the south the right to a referendum on independence after six years), resolution of the Abyei conflict, security arrangements, protocol on the resolution in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States, power sharing, and wealth-sharing agreement.[74] If all went well with the peace talks that began in 2003, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had pledged to lift sanctions against Sudan, provide financial assistance to the war-torn country, and remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Following a reassessment and a move to further strengthen the Sudan Act on 23 December 2004, the Bush administration signed into law the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act. Besides ending the conflict and reducing human suffering, the 2004 Act was to stimulate freedom and democracy.[75] The act also authorized $100 million to the warring parties to achieve a comprehensive peace accord.

International and regional efforts by the US, Britain, Norway, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Eritrea resulted in the signing of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement (the Naivasha Agreement) on 9 January 2005 by Khartoum and the Sudan's People Liberation Movement, thus, marking a formal end to more than four decades of civil war in Sudan as well as a shift toward cooperation in the war on terror that began with the horrifying experience of 9/11.

On 20 September 2001, President Bush told Congress and the nation that:

The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it and destroy it where it grows . . .. Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime . . .. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.[76]

Bush called on every nation to join the US on the war on terrorism by offering a choice of "either you are with the U.S. or with the terrorists." This marked a significant radical stance that altered America's foreign policy and national strategy. Along the same lines, then Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated: "This has become a new benchmark," and cooperation on terrorism is "a new way of measuring a nation's relationship with the US."[77] Consequently, in the wake of 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington DC, US foreign policy fundamentally shifted, as nations like Sudan, became of great interest to the Bush administration mainly because it believed Khartoum had intelligence vital to the war on terror. Classified as a "state supporter of terrorism," Sudan came to the support of the US by offering to clean out terrorist networks off its soil. In 1996, Sudan also claimed it repeatedly offered to turn bin Laden over to the US but Washington refused. However, such a claim was denied by former CIA director, George Tenet.[78] As Khidir Haroun Ahmed, Sudan's senior diplomat in Washington remarked, "If the United States had only listened to Sudan back in the mid-1990s, the tragedy of 11 September might have been avoided."[79] Sudan's mukhabarat (secret police) in the 1990s had collected intelligence on bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, including information on terrorists involved in the attacks of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, as well as information on suspected al-Qaeda operatives linked to the 11 September bombings. Instead, as Ahmed explained:

Yet from 1996 through 2000, Madeleine Albright and her Assistant Secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, apparently preferred to trust their instincts that Sudan was America's enemy, and so refused to countenance its assistance against the deepest threat to US security since 1945.[80]

The preceding statement is in line with former US Ambassador TimothyM. Carney's contention. For five years during the Clinton and Bush administrations, right up to the 9/11 attack, mukhabarat offered to provide vital information about bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but, according to Carney, the US rejected Sudan's readiness to engage America on terrorism. Carney noted that American inability to seize this opportunity had serious implications for US national interest. A case in point was the US embassies bombings in 1998. Furthermore, Carney added, the US lost access to a treasure of material on Saudi-born bin Laden and his network. It appeared the US was in an awkward position with its Sudanese policy as it sought to include a repressive radical, militant Islamic Sudan classified as a "rogue state" and a "state sponsor of terrorism" in an anti-terrorist effort.

Nevertheless, the Sudanese were sympathetic to the US following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, as Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Ismail spoke by telephone to Colin Powell. This was the first high-level contact between the two countries in years. Khartoum condemned the attacks and said it would cooperate on the war on terrorism. Relations between the two appeared to have improved as the US encouraged the cooperation of Sudan in its fight against international terrorism. Following the 9/11 attacks Sudan, behind the scenes, had become a cooperating partner and valuable ally of the CIA. In fact, it has so far shared its files on suspected terrorists with the US and restricted their financial transactions. For example, it has disclosed the following:

• Sudan's mukhabarat, its version of the CIA, has detained al-Qaeda suspects for interrogation by US agents;

• The Sudanese intelligence agency has seized and turned over to the FBI evidence recovered in raids on suspected terrorists' homes, including fake passports;

• Sudan has expelled extremists, putting them into the hands of Arab intelligence agencies working closely with the CIA;

• The regime is credited with foiling attacks against American targets by, among other things, detaining foreign militants moving through Sudan on their way to join forces with Iraqi insurgents.[81]

Sudan has also issued an open invitation for the US to come in, investigate, and follow-up on any information in connection with Sudan's involvement with terrorism. As a result, the US has sent security and anti-terrorism experts to Sudan.

Consequently, it appeared that the terrorists' attacks of 11 September had altered US global priorities, and dialogue and collaboration with the Sudanese government had become vital. Sudan's cooperation on the war on terrorism signaled a new turn in US-Sudanese relations, which have led to the softening of the prevailing tension between the two nations. This policy was further enhanced as the US supported the UN's lifting of the travel ban from the country. Likewise, Sudan seized the opportunity to possibly be removed from the blacklist of sponsors of terrorism. Yet, this great achievement was marred by the ongoing Darfur conflict and growing instability in north east Sudan.

The Darfur conflict, which began in February 2003, complicated international attempts to end the country's instability and kept US-Sudan relations tense. Since the fighting began, hundreds of thousands (at least 200,000) have been killed and more than 2.5 million displaced in the region. Darfurians blamed Khartoum for the region's underdevelopment and neglect. The accumulation of grievances led to the formation of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)[82] and the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLA). The government reacted to the rebellion ferociously, using Sudanese Air Force helicopters and planes to attack villages suspected of supporting the rebellion. The US declared that the Sudanese government's military forces and the government-backed militias, the Janjaweed, bore the responsibility for the Darfur atrocities, where a consistent and widespread pattern of violence had been directed against non-Arab individuals and villages.

As a result of Sudan's latest crisis, in June 2004 the Bush administration made the normalization of diplomatic relations with Sudan conditional upon ending the Darfur crisis. This greatly angered the Sudanese who saw this as "moving the goalposts" with regard to removing Sudan from the state sponsors of terrorism list. Besides, Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State, condemned what he classified as "genocide" in Darfur. Meanwhile, humanitarian conditions steadily declined and the security situation worsened. Currently, funds are urgently needed in Darfur to maintain the 7000 African Union (AU) force in the region mandated by the Security Council, to provide equipment and logistics, as well as sufficient humanitarian aid.

The AU mission was to observe and report violations of the April 2004 Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement. Despite the ceasefire, Janjaweed and rebel attacks continued. The AU endeavored to bring about African solutions to African problems (the move resulted in failure and absolved the West from interfering) but the international community failed to support the AU by providing adequate resources as the AU was near bankruptcy. A UN plan to send a 12000 man peacekeeping force into the region in December 2006 was rejected by the Sudanese government. Meanwhile, the new UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, awaits the go-ahead from Khartoum to plan for a hybrid UN-AU force in Darfur of approximately 17000 peacekeepers and 3000 police. The idea was to replace the exhausted African Union force which is small, ill-equipped, and poorly funded. However, Khartoum continues to oppose international demands for a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur. Bashir fears that the deployment of a UN force will be likened as Western invasion and that UN forces might arrest government officials implicated in the Darfur crisis. Khartoum insists on no blue helmeted peacekeeping mission in Darfur but would welcome technical support staff by the UN that would not engage in peacekeeping operations. Unfortunately, the ongoing opposition resulted in delays in the deployment of a UN force mandated to protect civilians under the UN charter.

On 5 May 2006, the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), mediated by the African Union and US was signed by Khartoum and the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLA). The DPA was the first step toward ending the violence in the region. However, the SLA faction led by Minni Arkou Minnawi (SLA/MM) was the only one of three negotiating factions to sign the peace accord. The agreement signed in Abuja, Nigeria was rejected and not signed by two other smaller factions, the Justice and Equality Movement and the SLA faction of Abdel Wahid Mohamed Nur (SLA/AW). SLA/AW, a smaller and a rival faction of the SLA, was concerned with such unresolved matters as compensation for war victims, proportionate political representation,[83] and participation in implementation of security arrangements.[84] On the other hand, JEM contended that the power and wealth-sharing protocols failed to adequately address structural inequality between Sudan's centre and its periphery. Consequentially, the fragile DPA fell apart, and failed to end the fighting but accelerated the violence. In addition, Kenneth H. Bacon, president of the advocacy group Refugees International informed President Bush: "That agreement is not working, and one of the many reasons is Minni Minnawi."[85] Despite the DPA, Minnawi's forces conducted a reign of terror, killed young men, abducted children, and raped women in northern Darfur.[86] The unpopular agreement facilitated the break-up of the rebellion into smaller groups. On 30 June 2006, some of the leaders who did not sign formed a new group, the National Redemption Front (NRF).[87] Despite the 12 May 2006 ceasefire fighting renewed in July 2006 between the NRF and Minnawi's SLA faction. This had the effect of further alienating many Darfurians from Khartoum. As one Fur ethnic leader stated, "The DPA is only words on paper, it means nothing to us. Our lives have only gotten worse since it was signed."[88] Nevertheless, President Bush urged Minnawi to build support for peace and work with other factions to achieve support for the DPA. Bush also cautioned Minnawi that his force "must refrain from instigating violence."[89] Overall, the Bush administration favors a policy of engaging the Khartoum government in a dialogue to end the crisis in Darfur.