In the 1970s, the US imposed sanctions on Sudan under the excuse of human rights violations and supporting terrorism. The sanctions froze the Sudan government's assets in the US and put a ban on trade relations with the North African country.
The American sanctions were even tightened in 2006 following what the US described Sudan government's hand in Darfur violence, and remained standing until the last year of President Barack Obama's presidency, though he in last days engaged in negotiations with Khartoum to partially lift some decades-long economic and diplomatic ban.
At that time, news spread about secret US-Sudan talks. Later it was made public that the two sides had been sitting on the negotiating table for six months, with Sudan pledging to accede to the American conditions to get the economic and diplomatic sanctions lifted. The US Charge d'affaires in Khartoum promised "immediate" lifting of some financial sanctions once Sudan observed terms of the deal.
In early January this year, the US in a surprise move lifted part of Sudan's financial sanctions. Many experts argued that lobbying by Saudi Arabia and the Israeli regime have been crucial to the Washington's ease of approach to Khartoum. At the time, the Israeli Haaretz newspaper quoted an employee of the Israeli foreign ministry as saying that the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Tom Shannon during a visit to Tel Aviv was told by the Israeli foreign ministry officials that the US needed to improve diplomatic ties with Sudan.
The Israeli daily added that Tel Aviv justified its call for better American-Sudanese relations by noting that Sudan's government cut diplomatic ties with Iran a year before and that the Iranian-supplied weapons to Gaza were no longer smuggled to Hamas through Sudanese channels. The Israeli officials further told the American official that Sudan was now close to a regional alliance led by Saudi Arabia which, according to Israeli regime, is a moderate state.
But the thaw process proved to simply produce hollow American pledges as Sudan despite taking practical steps as concessions failed to get the desired results. When Donald Trump assumed the office in early 2017, he showed a strong will to challenge nearly all Obama-era deals and commitments to international sides by subjecting them to reviewing and revoking. Sudan was no exception.
Last week and only two days before due date of the US schedule to fully lift Sudan sanctions, the Sudanese Foreign Minister Ibrahim Ghandour called the US to ease sanctions on his country, but Washington said that Trump delayed decision on lifting the sanctions for three months. Responding to the move, Sudan government suspended more talks with US for six months.
Postponing easing sanctions on Sudan is an apparent indicative of Trump's failure to adhere to the deals signed by the preceding administration. Trump treats Sudan like a businessman who makes delays to buy time for bigger gains though reviewing the dialogue conditions and the give and take process. He will finally decide if he should or should not lift the sanctions. For him this could be like skimming through the trading books, something he was doing as a businessman before he became the president of the US. What is clear is that Trump does not care how sanctions easing could transform and improve the living conditions of people in an impoverished country such as Sudan.
The US government's unpunctuality is by no means legal or compatible with the international laws, as other countries' dialogue and agreements with Washington have always brought them subsequent concerns about the US miscommitment. Due to unfair and US-dominated international structure, the weaker countries fail to react proportionately to the US non-adherence.
However, this is not the first time the US is breaking its words to other countries under an excuse and for those familiar with the international developments this is not a surprise. The international laws mechanism, unfortunately, can never offer guarantees that powers such as the US will be obliged to meet their commitments. The remaining means is the other countries' experiences that can recommend wary negotiations with Washington if any talks should take place.
LINK: https://www.ansarpress.com/english/7655
TAGS:
online news tv
