The U.S. President’s Decision to Lift Restrictions on Sudan: Timing and Implications
The Face of Truth
Ibrahim Shaglawi
Shglawi55@gmail.com
Successive U.S. administrations have imposed a series of economic sanctions on Sudan, either through executive orders by the president or through U.S. Congress legislation. These sanctions aimed to pressure Sudan, accused of sponsoring what was alleged “terrorism” during the years of the National Salvation government assumed power in 1989.
These sanctions remained in place throughout the 30-year rule of President Omar al-Bashir, ostensibly to limit the influence of al-Bashir’s government and isolate it. During this period, the regime appeared to be developing an independent stance, distancing itself from the international colonial system that has long dominated nations, suppressing their sovereignty, and stifling any attempts at national liberation.
At that time, the United States imposed sanctions on Sudan to curb its rapidly growing regional influence, especially given its alliances with political systems hostile to the U.S., such as Iran and Syria. In 1997, the sanctions escalated to include a trade embargo and the freezing of government assets due to alleged human rights violations and terrorism concerns. Additional sanctions were imposed in 2006, citing Sudan’s support for violence in Darfur, based on reports from activists and Sudanese politicians opposed to the government. These sanctions had a profound impact on the Sudanese people and economy; effects that Sudan continues to feel today. Despite efforts to overcome these sanctions, such as partnering with other nations like China to complete economic projects, Sudan remained burdened by the negative consequences of these measures.
China played a significant role in helping Sudan mitigate some of the sanctions’ effects by investing in energy, oil, infrastructure, agricultural projects, and defense industries.
From 2015 to 2017, there were U.S.-Sudan dialogue around what the U.S. termed “counterterrorism cooperation,” and Sudan made progress on human rights issues. As a result, President Barack Obama issued an executive order easing some of the economic and trade sanctions, allowing U.S. companies to export personal communication devices and software that would enable Sudanese citizens to access the internet and social media.
However, these sanctions remained a “carrot and stick” in U.S.-Sudan relations. Despite the transitional government led by Abdullah Hamdok after the ousting of al-Bashir, and despite Sudan’s payment of $750 million in compensation to the victims of the USS Cole bombing (a case in which Sudan was previously acquitted), these efforts did not lead to the lifting of sanctions.
On September 30, 2024, in a move with significant timing, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order No. 7017, exempting Sudan from sanctions imposed under the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. This move allows for the continuation of aid under development assistance provisions and global health programs. The decision enables Sudan to access U.S. development assistance and benefit from global health programs. Additionally, it allows Sudan to engage in banking, commercial, and financial transactions, benefit from technical assistance, and participate in scientific research and educational exchange opportunities.
Sudan’s government, through its foreign minister Hussein Awad, welcomed the decision, viewing it as an important step forward in bilateral relations and one that would aid reconstruction efforts, particularly in the health sector. Observing the timing and implications of the decision, it becomes clear that the United States is seeking to further its interests in Sudan by enabling American companies to participate in reconstruction efforts post-war. By clearing the way through this decision, the U.S. aims to secure a direct role and benefit from Sudan’s resources, ensuring American companies’ entry into the Sudanese market without the hindrance of existing sanctions.
For Sudan, the decision removes the last major impediments related to commercial and financial aid, making it a significant economic opportunity if Sudan wishes to engage with the U.S. in an open trade relationship. This decision is also seen as a U.S. strategy to outmaneuver other countries, such as China and Russia, in gaining influence in Sudan. The decision is closely tied to financial transparency laws and the U.S. budget approved through 2025.
Thus, the face of truth remains: how will Sudan benefit from this decision as it embarks on rebuilding what war has vandalized and reforming its economy to enable growth? Sudan must take advantage of this decision by leveraging the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) initiative to seek debt relief and by engaging with international financial organizations to establish economic partnerships that will provide the funding necessary for reconstruction. Additionally, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, indeed the entire economic development sector in Sudan must urgently develop a plan to capitalize on this decision, including sending a delegation to the United States to present Sudan’s economic vision for the coming phase, based on mutual interests and respect for national sovereignty. Sudan also has the potential to join economic alliances, such as BRICS, should it choose to do so?
Wishing you health and well-being.