Africa News blog

African business, politics and lifestyle

Is the new U.S. policy on Sudan the dawn of a new era of engagement with Khartoum?

By Reuters Staff
October 21, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Monday U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration announced its new Sudan policy after months of speculation and lobbying from those opposed to any positive overtures to Khartoum and those who said further isolating Sudan would derail years of peace efforts.

U.S.-Sudanese relations have seen many ups and down in recent years. U.S. sanctions were imposed in 1997 and the United States bombed a Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory in 1998. There was praise for a 2005 north-south peace deal ending more than two decades of civil war, but it was overshadowed by outrage over atrocities in the 2003 Darfur uprising where Washington accused Khartoum of genocide.

The new policy outlined broad engagement, although no direct talks with President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur. Khartoum was offered unspecified incentives for tangible progress towards ending the Darfur crisis and implementing the 2005 north-south peace deal. But the government was warned of penalties for any stalling tactics.

Most analysts agreed the strategy was middle of the road with something in there to please everyone. The reaction from most sides of Sudan’s multiple conflicts was one of cautious welcome indicating that, at least for now, it was a good compromise.

And after a fierce battle between anti-Khartoum lobbyists and those advocating engagement in the United States, Obama’s envoy Scott Gration seemed to come out on top, with the U.S. President expressing open support for his work, snubbing calls for him to be removed from his post.

Washington said it had learned past lessons including that the focus on Sudan could not just be on either the ongoing hostilities in Darfur or on the democratic transformation outlined in the north-south deal known as the CPA. Rather it acknowledged a more comprehensive approach to Sudan was necessary to ensure long-term peace.

Once the dust had settled it became apparent that the ball had been left in Khartoum’s court. Washington will scrutinise concrete moves towards breaking a deadlock on talks on how to hold the first multi-party elections in 24 years due in less than six months and a southern referendum on secession in 2011.

Do you think this marks a real change in U.S. policy in Sudan? Or has Obama’s administration just openly declared a policy that former President George W.  Bush was already following behind the scenes?

Do you think peace in Sudan can be achieved through the “carrot and stick” approach?

Should the international community be so involved in Sudan or should it just leave the Sudanese to solve their own problems?

Comments

mankind has no power but only Jehova God our heavenly father has it. What is bound to happen shall happen. I hope for the best and wealthfar for people of sudan. I hope what USA is doing shall bear fruits.

 

Sudan has become a major Power Play between the Twin Super Powers, the US and China. Intelligence reports are signalling that Kony and his LRA might well have moved into Sudan as well. They might well be a Proxy that the Government can use to stall and delay the Day of Reckoning with the South and the Referendum; a Referendum that is odds on to call for secession. The Chinese are clearly positioning for that Peel Off Moment. So There are many Layers in this Power Play.The Administration is taking a more RealPolitik Route with Khartoum and that was clearly thought the best route to remaining relevant in this Volatile Mix. It is a nuanced Political Posture in what might be a Situation that accelerates and careers.Aly-Khan Satchuwww.rich.co.keTwitter alykhansatchu

 

Gration understood the situation. The Khartoum government realized that arming tribes against rebels was a mistake or at least no longer needed. So to say there is still ongoing genocide is not true. Such statements and reflect lack of understanding of the Darfur issue. Susan Rice’s position, although admirable few years ago, is now unhelpful. Peace will certainly be achieved soon because it is the only option for the government, the rebel groups and the international community. The US has no real stick short of military action.

Posted by Hans | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •