OPORT: Sudan Is A State-Sponsor Of Terror — It Must Atone For 1998 Embassy Bombing To Change That

The morning of Aug. 7, 1998 began like any other for those of us serving at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.

Then the bomb went off. My memories are a jumble of sensations: suffocating darkness, the smell of smoke, and screams of coworkers. That day forever changed the course of so many lives — for those of us who survived and the families of those who did not. But as a survivor, I’ve learned two important things from that day: I cannot ignore what happened, and I cannot allow that past evil to shape my future.

These are lessons I pray Sudan’s new Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok takes to heart as he considers Sudan’s path forward following his U.S. visit this past week.

Sudan’s actions are why most of the embassy bombing survivors I know still sleep with the lights on to avoid being surrounded in darkness again. Sudan funded and trained the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. This was all proven in U.S. court during a long trial in 2010, which resulted in a judgment that Sudan pay reparations to U.S. embassy employees. (RELATED: Trump-Kenyatta Meeting Can Finally Secure Justice For US Victims Of Terrorism)

Although Sudan has taken positive strides towards rejoining the international community, Sudan’s military that helped pick the targets for the 1998 attacks still maintains an outsized role in Sudan’s power-sharing government. Sudan has continued to try to bypass this ruling by U.S. courts.

Prime Minister Hamdok initially made no mention of the U.S. court judgments against Sudan when he listed his priorities at the beginning of his trip here this month. However, after hearing an unequivocal bipartisan message from Congress that Sudan had to settle these judgments to be accepted back into the coalition of law-abiding nations, he changed his tune. Hamdok committed to settling the U.S court judgments within a matter of weeks.

This was an important step, but he made these assurances without having yet communicated with the survivors and families of those killed in the attack about what he hoped a settlement might look like. And when he arrived home, he bragged to local media that he planned to pay American survivors only a few cents on the dollar of what U.S. courts order Sudan to pay. These numbers would not be accepted by families or Congress, and no settlement can be achieved by Sudan without engaging the American embassy workers who hold these judgments.

The survivors of the 1998 attacks were all serving in our embassies because we believe in the promise of America’s message of liberty and justice for all in northern Africa. Many of us also believe in the possibility of restorative justice that will increase the chance for peace in the region — in the potential for repentance and forgiveness. But in the same way that we could not move forward with our lives if we ignored what happened, Sudan must also face what it did (and who it did these things to) if it hopes to reenter the fold of law-abiding nations.

The United States, and Congress in particular, has made very clear that for Sudan to come off the state sponsor of terror list, it must acknowledge the validity of the court rulings against it and pay the court-ordered damages.

We want to see Sudan continue to make progress. But if Sudan hopes to settle this judgment, it needs to do more than put out press statements and actually engage with the victims it created by supporting these attacks.