A coup for diplomacy in Sudan
The Obama administration, elsewhere challenged by Iranian nuclear ambitions and North Korean brinkmanship, is on the verge of a major diplomatic achievement in Sudan. Barring technical failures that delay the vote, or unexpected violence, South Sudan will approve an independence referendum on Jan. 9. Six months later, a new flag will rise, a new anthem will be played. It is a rare, risky, deeply American enterprise: midwifing the birth of a new nation.
Even six years ago, this outcome seemed impossible. The mainly Muslim north and the mainly Christian south were engaged in a two-decade-old civil war that unleashed genocide, produced millions of refugees and took about three times as many lives as the American Civil War. But in 2005, the Bush administration brokered the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which created a government of national unity and promised an independence referendum for the south in 2011.
Even six months ago, implementation of the CPA seemed unlikely. Electoral abuses in local contests had widened bitter, sometimes violent, divisions within the south. And Obama administration policy on Sudan was uncoordinated, ineffective and widely criticized.
But the summer of 2010 was a turning point. The administration was sobered by the prospect of a referendum in less than 200 days for which no one was prepared. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been pushing to elevate the issue to the presidential level, demanding, according to one official, "one team, one fight." In August, President Obama declared that Denis McDonough, then the chief of staff on the National Security Council, now deputy national security adviser, would coordinate a unified government response. The administration's common approach, dubbed "the road map," publicly promised the regime in Khartoum a series of carrots - reviewing its status on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, beginning the lifting of sanctions and starting discussions on debt relief - in exchange for allowing the south to go quietly. Sen. John Kerry carried messages and applied pressure in both Khartoum and the southern capital of Juba. It was an effective full-court press.
Southern leaders rose to the moment, encouraging an internal dialogue that has reduced the level of conflict and violence in the south. And elements of the regime in Khartoum seem prepared for sullen acceptance of southern independence, calculating that the road map might lessen Sudan's isolation as a pariah state, and probably convinced that military re-conquest of the south is not an option.
Every diplomatic achievement is rewarded by new complexities. Between the independence referendum in January and full independence on July 9, 2011, a variety of issues - concerning borders, citizenship, security and the distribution of oil revenue - will need to be resolved. This will be a high-stakes, trust-building exercise between two powers more accustomed to war. South Sudan will require considerable help to avoid the fate of a failed state - particularly to build its capacity to govern and fight corruption. The issue of what to do with southern refugees in the north - there are 1.5 million to 2 million - will be especially sensitive. It would be easy for these refugees to become hostages. And another Sudanese region in revolt - Darfur in the west - remains a muddle of open warfare and fragile negotiations, in which civilians continue to suffer.
But even partial diplomatic successes are worth celebrating - and this is less partial than most. Assuming the last lap of a long race is completed, southern independence will allow these long-suffering people to govern and defend themselves - a development that remains satisfying to a revolutionary power such as America. And southern sovereignty will permanently limit the ability of Khartoum to do harm in a vast region it has harmed for too long. This success also represents the bipartisan continuity of American foreign policy - a peace process launched in one administration and continued by another.
The most timely message sent by this achievement concerns the nature of the diplomatic task. It was the intention of recent WikiLeaks disclosures to reveal the names of American diplomats and expose their malign influence in the world. Well, here is a leak of my own. People such as McDonough, Michelle Gavin and Samantha Power in the White House, along with Johnnie Carson, Scott Gration and Princeton Lyman at the State Department, are employing American power to noble purpose. I mention their names (none of them secret) because they represent how skilled, effective government officials can shape history, improve the lives of millions and bring honor to the country they serve.