RECENT POSTS
- Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/23/2009
- Obama Calls for Annual Science Fair: Achievement Should be Recognized like NCAA Championship Win
- Obama Decision on Copenhagen Summit Attendance “In the Coming Days”
- Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
- President Obama Calls 9th War Council Meeting for Tonight
- Health Care Hurdles
- The Presidential Planner
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Darfur Groups Wary About President Obama's New Sudan Policy
October 19, 2009 6:00 AM
Jake Tapper and Kirit Radia report:
Human rights organizations focused on curbing the genocide in Darfur reacted warily towards the Obama administration's new stance towards the government of Sudan, to be announced on Monday by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The new strategy of engaging Khartoum constitutes a change from the policy held by President George W. Bush, as well as the campaign rhetoric voiced by then-candidate Obama one year ago.
U.S. officials acknowledge the reaction from human rights groups has been mixed. Officials from the groups largely agree with the Obama administration's goals to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the civil war and, among other provisions, provides for a Southern Sudanese referendum in 2011; and to negotiate a peace treaty that will end the crisis in Darfur and allow the Sudanese people to return to their homes.
Their concern is that history suggests that the government of Sudan responds only to pressure, and they worry President Obama's Special Envoy to the Sudan, Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (ret.) has been reluctant to apply that pressure.
"We're not opposed to engagement with the Government of Sudan but we have to be clear-eyed about it," said one activist. "We're dealing with a regime led by a wanted war criminal. Carrots should only be given when there is clear progress made and pressure should be applied to any party in Sudan that violates international agreements or commits atrocities."
There are currently an estimated 3 million Darfurians in refugee camps. They're dependent on relief organizations, many of whom were expelled by the government of Darfur in March; Gration has said that the relief organizational capacity was back near 100 percent after the expulsions were replaced.
In addition, some claim that the government of Sudan is arming militias leading to increased violence in South Sudan.
Gration found many opponents within the administration to his push for engagement with Khartoum, namely U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Dr. Susan Rice. But ultimately Gration's push prevailed, though it was modified somewhat.
Just two days after Rice described the situation in Darfur as "genocide" in a speech in June, Gration told reporters that Darfur was experiencing only the "remnants of genocide," with violence better described as criminal in nature.
Gration's assessment also seemed to contradict what Obama had said just weeks earlier when he referred to the violence in Darfur as "genocide that's taking place."
A White House official insisted that the new strategy outlines both incentives and disincentives and that "backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure, leveraged by the United States and the international community. Because Sudan is a place of multiple crises, regular assessments by the interagency are built into our approach to allow for much-needed flexibility."
The official, who spoke not for attribution because the strategy has yet to be officially unveiled, said the strategy is based on a policy of “verify, then trust," meaning failure to make progress with CPA implementations would be met with action.
"If there are demonstrable and verifiable improvements on the ground, then there will be a discussion about incentives," the White House official said.
"While the Administration's long-awaited plan seems to include the right elements for a successful strategy, we’ve been disappointed by their diplomatic efforts to date," said Sam Bell, executive director of the Genocide Intervention Network. "The big question now is implementation. Will the United States build a multilateral coalition and pressure those who violate international agreements and commit atrocities? We’ll be watching this very closely in the coming weeks and months.”
The head of Save Darfur, Jerry Fowler, gave a slightly more positive response, saying that the plan appears to have many of the "right elements -- particularly focusing on balancing incentives with pressures. Three issues will be crucial for effective implementation. First, there should be no front-loading of incentives; they should be provided only after concrete and lasting progress. Second, the U.S. must generate multilateral support for both incentives and pressures. And third, direct presidential leadership is essential -- for example, President Obama must make Sudan a priority when he goes to China next month.”
In San Diego in July 2008, then-Sen. Obama said he'd "been very active on the issue of Darfur in the U.S. Senate and I will use the power of my presidency to prevent ongoing genocide in Darfur."
Then-Sen. Obama said he would push for a policy of "getting a protective force on the ground, providing the logistical support, the monetary support for that protective force to actually be functioning, making sure that we’ve got the kinds of coalitions that can effectuate a no-fly zone and that tighten economic sanctions. Those are all going to be top priorities when I’m president."
White House officials argue that conditions on the ground have changed significantly since then, thus necessitating a change in policy.
- Jake Tapper and Kirit Radia
October 19, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (12)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 19, 2009 1:39:47 PM
**
Meanwhile, Congressman Rohrabacher, a Republican, actually has some interesting things to say about the leadership of his own party-- check it out at The Hill blog, but here's one to chew on:
""The American people rightfully think the Republicans are just complaining, because we had power -- we had both houses of Congress and we had the presidency," Rohrabacher explained. "What did we do with it? All of these changes that we could make to have improved our healthcare system we didn't do during the Bush years when we had both houses in Congress."
Posted by: GwenTenn | Oct 19, 2009 11:03:37 PM
He is the guy who has lost his popularity at an alarming rate — and support of
independents — over health care — [which is] his initiative, on which he has given, what, 28 speeches — and still has the majority of Americans opposing it.
He is the one who caved in to the Russians on missile defense. He sold out our friends the Poles and the Czechs supposedly as a way to get Russian support on Iran. He sends the secretary of state, [and] this week she gets humiliated in Moscow and the Russians indicate they won't help or budge on Iran at all.
(Dr. Krauthammer)
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 19, 2009 1:39:47 PM
Oh, the White House has bigger fish to fry. Like diverting attention to how they are mistreated by Fox News and flying all over the country for pit stops here and there giving campaign speeches bashing insurance companies and etc. It would be nice if Obama would actually grow-up and handle himself like a mature adult. Sigh... dreams are free.
Posted by: SjB | Oct 19, 2009 1:27:16 PM
The human right's groups know Obama.
He isn't going to apply pressure to anyone unless there's a donation in it for him--or a payback for his special interest.
Posted by: hank | Oct 19, 2009 12:24:15 PM
Obama has a Maoist for a communication director. He seems to think Anita Dunn's admiration of a mass murderer is OK.
She still has a job in his WH.
Genocide in China is no different than in Darfur.
Obama doesn't have the courage to speak out against either.
Posted by: larry | Oct 19, 2009 12:20:54 PM
More promises with expiration dates.
Obama/White House thinks we're too dumb to notice and the world is too in love with him to care.
That seems to be how they govern.
Posted by: kyle | Oct 19, 2009 12:14:28 PM
Wait.
I can remember Obama saying that genocide in Iraq wasn't enough reason for us to stay there.
Posted by: drjohn | Oct 19, 2009 10:11:53 AM
===Those are all going to be top priorities when I’m president."===
And we all know how Obama keeps those campaign promises, don't we?
Posted by: Axey | Oct 19, 2009 9:41:43 AM
This is a monsterous history which wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for the Europeans.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | Oct 19, 2009 8:23:13 AM
Jake.. if you keep up the criticism.. you will be the next Fox News.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | Oct 19, 2009 8:06:51 AM
Top prioraties when I am president [you lie]. Not genicide anymore, when are you going to do anything that you promesed.
Posted by: earl | Oct 19, 2009 7:50:59 AM
Jake, it's those "conditions on the ground" that you should press them on. In response to the ICC indictment and our tough talk of isolation, Sudan played hardball and kicked out foreign aid workers. Now they've negotiated relief from the misery they created in exchange for this agreement (as well as cooperation on fighting terrorism -- the same thing Salah Gosh offered George W. Bush to get him to kill the Darfur Accountability Act in the House after it passed the senate UNANIMOUSLY).
This is a monsterous history which wouldn't be happening if the victims were Europeans.
Posted by: Rusty | Oct 19, 2009 7:15:09 AM
Post a comment
