Sudan Talking Points – Top Line Messages

January 11, 2011

Referendum
• The people of Sudan have endured some of the world’s most horrendous violence,
including the genocide in Darfur that has claimed more than 300,000 lives and
forced millions from their homes, and a 22-year civil war between the north and
south that caused an estimated 2 million deaths, mostly in the south.

• Southern Sudanese are voting from January 9-15 in a referendum that is part of an
historic 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended Sudan’s civil war.

• The referendum began on time, and without widespread violence. This is

something that advocates in the United States and around the world have worked
very hard for, and we appreciate the stepped diplomacy conducted by the Obama
Administration and other world leaders.

• However, there is much work to be done before the world should take the spotlight
off of Sudan -- negotiations between north and south will continue on key
flashpoint issues that could spark renewed conflict, including wealth sharing,
border delineation, citizenship and the status of contested areas like the Abyei
region.

• We are urging U.S. leaders to make clear that the United States will maintain its
high level of engagement pursuing peace in all of Sudan.

Darfur
• As world leaders understandably focus attention on the referendum, we remain
concerned about ongoing violence in Darfur, particularly the recent fighting in
south Darfur’s town of Khor Abeche that displaced thousands of civilians in
December. An estimated 2.7 million Darfuri civilians are living in IDP camps and
an additional 300,000 were displaced in 2010 alone. There are also ongoing
reports of blocked humanitarian aid and ongoing human rights abuses in Darfur,
where more than 300,000 people have died in that region’s ongoing genocide.

• We urge the United States to devote the time and attention necessary to move
toward peace and stability in Darfur. Specifically:

o The United States should make sure that any improvements in its bilateral
relationship with the Government of Sudan is tied not only to progress on
North/South issues, but also the Government of Sudan’s support and
implementation of a non-violent solution to the Darfur crisis;
 o The international community—led by the United States—should push for the
Government of Sudan to provide unimpeded access for peacekeepers and
humanitarian workers to areas where fighting has taken place and where
internally displaced persons have fled;
o The United States and other parties should push for effective
implementation of the Darfur arms embargo that could include the
embargo’s expansion;
o UNAMID should collect and publish information on violence and access
issues in its area of operation; and
o The U.S. should lead international efforts to support the Doha Peace
process, reinvigorate the peace process in a neutral location, encourage all
the parties to negotiate in good faith and make sure a cessation of
hostilities agreement is signed and implemented.

• A peaceful resolution to the unacceptable situation in Darfur is integral to the long-

term stability of the entire region and should continue to be an integral component
of U.S. and international efforts in Sudan

What can the U.S. Government Do to Support Peace in

Sudan?
The United States must be prepared to take stronger actions if diplomatic
efforts are not sufficient to prevent and/or halt violence. These should be
determined and prepared for in advance, and the United States should publically spell
out consequences for negative action by Sudanese parties.

Support the renewal and expansion on UNMIS’ mandate: The U.S. should support
the renewal of the UNMIS mandate beyond July 9th and redefine the mandate so that a
peacekeeping force will be more effective in post-CPA Sudan.

Sustain engagement throughout the process: The U.S. should support critical
negotiations on post- referendum issues and remain highly engaged throughout the post-
referendum and post-separation process.

Ongoing Comprehensive Contingency Planning to respond to violence if/as it

occurs: This planning should be done in coordination with our allies wherever possible
and must be kept up-to-date as the situation on the ground changes.

Ensuring flexible funds are available for emergency support: The United States
should also encourage key players in the international community including UN Security
Council and European Union member states to make funds available for contingencies.
This includes responding quickly to any major displacement within Sudan or refugee
spillover into neighboring states.

Enhance Peacekeeping Forces Capacity to Respond: Support deployment of

additional UNMIS peacekeepers to flashpoint areas, and/or if needed provide more direct
assistance to peacekeeping forces to quell violence.

Monitoring and intelligence gathering: Any information on the organization or

perpetration of violence should be shared as appropriate with peacekeeping forces and
allies. The U.S. should be prepared to shut down military-related communication if
necessary to prevent violence. The U.S. should also encourage OHCHR, OCHA, and
UNAMID to increase public reporting of human rights and access reporting at least to
past levels.
WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO THE PEOPLE OF SUDAN?

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called Sudan a “ticking time bomb”

1. Formal Declaration of War or Intentional Widespread Fighting: Although

avoiding war would seem to be in the interest of both parties, various scenarios could
increase the possibility of this disastrous outcome.

2. Localized Clashes between Northern and Southern Armies: Build-up of troops

from both sides along the north-south border signals a strong possibility of localized
fighting. There are already reports of the northern Sudanese Armed Forces bombing
border areas, and the UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan has stated that it cannot
effectively secure the border. The Abyei region could also become a flashpoint for
violence between northern and southern military forces. With tensions running high, a
localized incident could spark wider conflict.

3. Violent Crackdown on Southerners in the North and/or Northerners in the

South: There are more than 1.5 million southerners living in the North and a
significant number of northerners living in the south, and these populations could be
targets of human rights abuses and possibly violence. Direct threats against the rights
of southerners living in the north have already been reported.

4. Violent Clashes between Different Political and/or Ethnic Groups: Localized

violence between ethnic and political groups within the south and/or the Abyei region
is a real possibility. Violence could erupt on its own or be supported by the
Government of Sudan.

5. Polling Irregularities that Serve to Increase North-South Tensions: Given

various logistical challenges—and the competing interests of both parties—the
likelihood of polling irregularities during the referendum is high. Depending upon how
extensive the irregularities are and how they impact the results of the referenda,
tensions between parties could increase even further. The biggest point of contention
is likely to be around meeting the threshold requiring 60% of those registered to vote
in South Sudan’s referendum to turn out in order for the results to be valid.

6. Refugee Crises in Border States: Direct north-south violence or localized clashes

that seriously endanger civilians may drive many people from their homes to
bordering states.

7. Lord’s Resistance Army Involved in Attacks: The LRA resumes either localized
attacks or a widespread campaign to terrorize civilians in southern Sudan or Darfur,
including by abducting children to replenish its ranks. There have been numerous
indications that the LRA has recently sought safe haven in South Darfur and has
sought support from the Khartoum government, who previously supported the LRA.

8. Intensified Violence in Darfur: With international attention focused on north/south

issues, the Government of Sudan could ramp up violent activities in Darfur. Recent
reports indicate that the Government has accelerated violence against civilians and
obstructed or manipulated access for aid groups and peacekeepers in numerous
areas.