We think Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin hits all of the right points in his recent article about the Obama administration’s Sudan policy.
“Obama’s approach to Sudan has been hobbled from the beginning by deep divisions between senior officials — especially [Scott] Gration, the special envoy, and [Susan] Rice, the U.N. ambassador — on how best to handle Khartoum, sources said. Gration is said to be big on carrots, while Rice prefers sticks. [Deputy Secretary of State Jim] Steinberg is also said to lean towards a harder line, which the advocacy community also favors.”
“In 2006, Rice coauthored an article saying, “History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force.’”
“ABC News reported that Rice was “furious” in June when Gration said that Darfur was experiencing only the “remnants of genocide.” The State Department quickly confirmed that its official position is that genocide is ongoing.”
Our thoughts: How is someone like Gration still controlling the Sudan portfolio? And why can’t the Obama administration execute a strong and coordinated Sudan policy?
Among other things, President Obama has promised to impose consequences (targeted multilateral sanctions, etc.) if the Sudanese government fails to improve conditions on the ground in both Darfur and Southern Sudan.
Well — those measurable improvements have not been seen. So what is President Obama waiting for now?
