In recent days, the United States has, somewhat randomly, changed its policy toward two African countries: Chad was added to the list of countries with travel bans applied and some long-standing U.S. sanctions against Sudan were removed.
In recent days, the United States has, somewhat randomly, changed its policy toward two African countries: Chad was added to the list of countries with travel bans applied and some long-standing U.S. sanctions against Sudan were removed.
It might be just a phenomenon of the United States, its foreign policy to some extent in the hands of a still disorganized, understaffed Department of State, pursuing bilateral policies toward individual countries, this time in Africa, with no particular coherent theme. Chad has not done anything especially horrendous recently, including in the realm of terrorism or human rights violations, to have somehow landed itself on the visa-ban list. Sudan is considered something of a long-term villain for its actions in one of its regions, Darfur, and for its partial residual responsibility for the beastly civil conflict in now independent South Sudan.
The no-travel list, announced Sept. 24, includes Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
Chad has, in fact, played a positive role in the regional effort, backed by the United States, to somehow stifle Boko Haram, an Islamic-based group that carries out kidnapping and other damaging activities, based in northeastern Nigeria. U.S. military forces have supported action by Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger to try to bring Boko Haram under control, with mixed results. How putting Chad on the no-travel list is consistent with its role in that regard is not clear.
It is also the case that Chad is oil-rich and that some American companies are active in that domain in the desert country. Chadian irregular forces have contributed to the chaos and disorder in the bordering Central African Republic, but the United States has showed no particular interest in developments in the C.A.R.
The removal of U.S. economic sanctions against Sudan signals a step toward a restoration of more normal relations with its government. Darfur at one point was a cause for advocates of human rights, based on the actions of Sudanese government-backed militias, some called the janjaweed, against the people of that region. At that point, Israel was active in the international campaign against the Khartoum government, interested in embarrassing an Arab, Muslim government for its retrograde policy toward Darfur.
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir remains indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide, although various countries, including South Africa, have refused to arrest the Sudanese president during visits to their countries. Sudan counts Saudi Arabia, which President Donald Trump visited in May, as one of its best friends.
There is no indication, however, the Sudanese government and president have notably cleaned up their acts in recent years, which would support a decision by the United States to remove sanctions against them. Sudan, unlike Chad, has few resources, so there is no obvious commercial basis for that change in U.S. policy. Neither move is blatantly stupid. What is odd is significant changes of policy toward particular countries, Chad and Sudan, with no obvious rationales for the shifts.
— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette