Two weeks ago, the Obama administration announced its new policy in regards to Sudan.
Sudan is currently the site of an ongoing genocide in Darfur where an estimated hundreds of thousands have been killed and more than 2.5 million displaced, according to the Genocide Intervention Network. The genocide began in 2003 when the Sudanese government began a counter-insurgency campaign comprised of local militias, collectively referred to as the janjaweed, or “devils on horseback.” The janjaweed is known for mass terror of villages, the looting and burning of food stocks and rape of women and children.
Unrest in Darfur originated when Darfur’s many ethnic groups began to compete for food and resources. This tension intensified with the outbreak of civil war between North and South Sudan. In 2003, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ended the North-South war, but did nothing to improve conditions in Darfur.
Since then, negotiations to ameliorate the situation have been, to a large extent, ineffective. The United States under the Bush administration was the first to accuse the Sudanese government, and primarily its leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, of participating in genocide, but the Bush policy towards Sudan yielded no concrete results.
Connecticut College professor Tristan Anne Borer compares the Bush plan to the new Obama plan, “If we think of the new Obama administration approach as one of sticks AND carrots” (or pressures and incentives or isolation and engagement), “the Bush administration approached the issue much more from the first half of those equations–sticks, pressures and punishment.”
Bush’s plan mandated engagement with Bashir and the imposition of sanctions to force Bashir to secure a safe and stable Sudan. Bush was criticized, however, for taking too soft a position when dealing with a leader recently accused of crimes against humanity.
Indeed, the same criticism has been mirrored with regards to Obama’s new policy. The new plan outlines three principal strategies: to assure a definitive end to conflict and genocide in Darfur, to address unimplemented areas of the CPA and to ensure that Sudan does not provide refuge for international terrorists. To do this, Obama plans to execute a combination of incentives and pressures to work with the Sudanese government as opposed to isolating it.
Annie Bigwood ’11, president of the student-run anti-genocide movement on campus, STAND (Students Taking Action Now Darfur), said, “While the policy looks promising on paper… the real test for the Obama administration will be the implementation of the new Sudan policy. This means providing no incentives before substantial progress is made within the Sudanese government, and getting worldwide support to end the genocide. The only way the plan will succeed is with the cooperation of the Sudanese government.”
Indeed, the United States cannot achieve these intended ends alone. The new plan will require multilateral support in order to work properly. Such support may be found more easily now than during the Bush administration because President Obama has superior relations with the United Nations, who are instrumental in coordinating foreign assistance.
Bigwood emphasized the importance of a new, effective policy, “The United States is one of the world’s leading powers. We have the moral obligation to interfere with the Darfur conflict because it is happening before our eyes, we are completely aware of its magnitude and we have the power to pressure the global community into protesting the violence. The United States cannot miss a chance to use its influence and stop a genocide from continuing. Obama’s plan is impressive and has the potential to make positive changes. The U.S. needs to make peace in Darfur a priority and convince the rest of the world to do the same.”
