Obama and Sudan

U.S. President Barack Obama’s initiative in Sudan may have an essential advantage by eliminating some of the previous enmities that U.S. policy has harbored against the government in Khartoum. Rather, it used a language that is less arrogant and more tractable, and U.S. policy has put U.S.-Sudanese relations at a crossroads, either to aid further improvement or to add more observation and penalty.

It is worth mentioning that the sole serious issue in Obama’s initiative lies in keeping the U.S. envoy, General Scott Gration, in his post. He had the courage to demand that the U.S. Congress eliminate penalties from Sudan and to eliminate it from the list of countries that encourage terrorism. Furthermore, Scott Gration sought to build up a different picture of the situation in Darfur, which varies from the typical picture that unjustly accuses Khartoum of planned genocide, despite wide criticism from Republicans and their attempts to force Obama’s administration to change him or remove him from his post.

In fact, this is the sole situation in Obama’s initiative that consists of promises to eliminate U.S. precautions if the Sudanese government seeks to create real change in Sudan.

It is noticeable that Sudan is still under enormous penalties, which Obama determines, and is still one of the countries that encourages terrorism, despite the initiative.

In order to take the carrot before the stick, Obama’s initiative demands from the Khartoum government that they quickly end the current situation in Darfur and return the refugees who live in camps to their own villages. In addition, the initiative requests the prompt disarmament of the militias who threaten the citizens and to solve all of its problems with the southern government. Moreover, the government has to comply with all conditions that were stipulated in the self-determination agreement and not offer sanctuary to terrorists.

It was a good sign on the part of the Khartoum government when Ghazi Salah El-Din – one of President Al-Bashir’s consultants – mentioned that the initiative contains many positive issues, despite the U.S. president’s use of the term “genocide” when he described the events in Darfur. This description went well beyond the real conflict and its dimensions.

Finally, we can say that the demands of the initiative are objective in sum. However, Obama’s initiative should direct a part of its interest to solve the problem of Darfur rebels who refuse the negotiations, insist on confrontation and concentrate on their numerous splits, which broke the negotiations down. These rebels are indeed an essential element in the Darfur problem, but, more importantly, we cannot neglect them by only blaming Khartoum.