Oct 20 2009
Will Obama’s New Strategy on Sudan Work?
President Barack Obama outlined a new policy of engagement yesterday with the government of Sudan. In unveiling a two-fold strategy, the Obama administration announced plans to offer incentives to Khartoum if it takes measurable steps towards peace. In addition, the President, who also stated that he would resume sanctions on Sudan this week, warned of “increased pressure” on the regime if it failed to act. The United Nations has estimated that conflict in Africa’s largest country has claimed the lives of more than 300,000 people. Mass killings in Darfur, particularly since 2003, were labeled by the Bush Administration as genocide. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed the term yesterday much to the chagrin of the Sudanese government according to an adviser to President Omar al-Bashir. Although it remained unclear as to what exactly “incentives” and “increased pressures” entailed, Obama was clear on policy objectives his administration sees as imperative to peace in the country. In outlining his strategy, the President called for the definitive end to conflict, human rights abuses, and genocide in Darfur as well as for the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South of Sudan. Al-Bashir adviser Ghazi Salahadin acknowledged in a press conference that, “Compared to the previous policies, there are positive point.”
GUEST: Ian Williams, Senior Analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus
For more information, visit www.fpif.org.
One Response to “Will Obama’s New Strategy on Sudan Work?”
Ed Herman wrote:
It was just a matter of time before members of the collapsing left enlisted in the imperial attack on the most fundamental principles of the UN Charter, and added their voices to the growing chorus of support for Western power-projection under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). But this has now been done in Foreign Policy in Focus by John Feffer, IAN WILLIAMS, and David Greenberg.1 That such a rightward turn could find a home at the Institute for Policy Studies . . . we find deeply troubling.
full article:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/hp240809.html