The Obama Administration finally unveiled its comprehensive plan to bring peace to Sudan today at an event attended by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Special Envoy to Sudan Gen. Scott Gration. These three administration heavyweights said many good things about their intentions in the news conference, but the question still remains about their implementation.
Many in the activist community have a great deal of concern about what they see as a real gap between the administration’s rhetoric and its day-to-day diplomacy with the Sudanese government. President Obama must be firm in his promise to lead a more urgent multi-lateral peace process. U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration must work to build an international coalition for the meaningful implementation of the North-South peace deal, and implement a policy that creates real consequences for those who continue to attack civilians, block life-saving aid, undermine peace and justice.
For more information on this major development, please check out the following resources:
• View the video of the State Department’s news conference
• View the Washington Post preview article on the Sudan Policy
• View a video response from Sam Bell, Executive Director of the Genocide Intervention Network
• View an op-ed in the LA Times by John Prendergast, Co-founder of ENOUGH!
Take action: Call 1-800-GENOCIDE and urge President Obama to implement his new strategy and keep his campaign promises on Sudan.
Showing posts with label Gration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gration. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Cookies for a dictator?
In an article in the Washington Post, U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan Scott Gration is quoted as saying, "We've got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries, they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."
He said this on the eve of a major Sudan policy review by the new Obama Administration and that comment, among other statements, is raising eyebrows across the Darfur peace movement.
Cookies for a Sudanese government that has repeatedly broken promises? Cookies for a Sudanese government that expelled humanitarian groups, thus endangering the lives of millions, but then insisted on getting a reward for letting these same groups back in?
I believe the main concern from the Darfur peace movement’s leaders is that these Gration statements reflect the Administration's official Sudan policy. Such an apparently "soft" approach flies in the face of the bold statements and commitments to action made by former Senators Obama, Biden and Clinton on the campaign trail.
The leaders of the Enough Project, Save Darfur Coaltion and the Genocide Intervention Network released a statement in response. To quote Sam Bell, the director of the Genocide Intervention Network: “If Washington is going to start taking war criminals at their word, despite the long list of Khartoum's broken commitments, an even larger tragedy will soon unfold.” [Full disclosure: I am a 2009 Carl Wilkens Fellow with the Genocide Intervention Network]
Personally, I want to trust the Envoy. I want to believe that offering incentives is shortest route to ending the suffering of my friends and their families in Darfur. If his tactics have gained him the trust and ear of the Government of Sudan (GoS), then perhaps cookies are what need to be served.
However, the leader of the Darfur Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel group was quoted in the Sudan Tribune on Sept. 28 saying the Envoy “does not have a program or strategy for a solution” in Darfur. This does not give me condidence that Gration has the trust of the rebels, who will be key in ending this mess.
So…is Gration fumbling away a chance for real peace by losing the confidence of a key ally in JEM, or is his strategy of paying attention and giving “cookies” to the GoS the right focus and key to long-term solutions? Let me know what you think.
He said this on the eve of a major Sudan policy review by the new Obama Administration and that comment, among other statements, is raising eyebrows across the Darfur peace movement.
Cookies for a Sudanese government that has repeatedly broken promises? Cookies for a Sudanese government that expelled humanitarian groups, thus endangering the lives of millions, but then insisted on getting a reward for letting these same groups back in?
I believe the main concern from the Darfur peace movement’s leaders is that these Gration statements reflect the Administration's official Sudan policy. Such an apparently "soft" approach flies in the face of the bold statements and commitments to action made by former Senators Obama, Biden and Clinton on the campaign trail.
The leaders of the Enough Project, Save Darfur Coaltion and the Genocide Intervention Network released a statement in response. To quote Sam Bell, the director of the Genocide Intervention Network: “If Washington is going to start taking war criminals at their word, despite the long list of Khartoum's broken commitments, an even larger tragedy will soon unfold.” [Full disclosure: I am a 2009 Carl Wilkens Fellow with the Genocide Intervention Network]
Personally, I want to trust the Envoy. I want to believe that offering incentives is shortest route to ending the suffering of my friends and their families in Darfur. If his tactics have gained him the trust and ear of the Government of Sudan (GoS), then perhaps cookies are what need to be served.
However, the leader of the Darfur Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel group was quoted in the Sudan Tribune on Sept. 28 saying the Envoy “does not have a program or strategy for a solution” in Darfur. This does not give me condidence that Gration has the trust of the rebels, who will be key in ending this mess.
So…is Gration fumbling away a chance for real peace by losing the confidence of a key ally in JEM, or is his strategy of paying attention and giving “cookies” to the GoS the right focus and key to long-term solutions? Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
