Obama team lays out incentives for Khartoum but not pressures

When President Obama meets with leaders from northern and southern Sudan Friday, his goal will be to persuade them to speed up preparations for a January referendum, in hopes of avoiding a new civil war. However, his approach is still coming under fire from Sudan advocacy groups, who have criticized the administration for its unwillingness to specify what the penalties will be if Khartoum continues its obstructionist actions.

The Khartoum government is widely viewed as continuing to pursue policies, such as delaying preparations for the vote and refusing to define the borders between the two regions,  which make the possibility of a free and fair vote in South Sudan more difficult. The dictatorship, led by indicted war criminal President Omar al-Bashir, also continues to foment violence in the Darfur region, where millions of refugees suffer horrid conditions and live in fear of attacks by government-backed militias.

The administration’s Sudan team, which has battled internally over how to approach the Bashir government over the past year, has come up with a more detailed package of incentives and pressures to bring to bear on the Sudanese government in advance of Obama’s meeting. The Cable reported that this approach, however, was also a source of contention inside the administration, with U.N. representative Susan Rice taking the stance that the pressures were not strong enough. She was overruled by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who sided with Special Envoy Scott Gration.

Still, the administration has been ramping up its diplomatic efforts in Sudan. Vice President Joseph Biden traveled to the region in June. In August, the State Department dispatched veteran diplomat Princeton Lyman to Sudan to manage the U.S. support effort. Then, last week, the State Department issued a policy fact sheet that lays out incentives for Khartoum — but gave no hint of the sticks that the U.S. government was also contemplating as leverage.

On a private conference call with Sudan advocacy leaders Monday, a recording of which was provided to The Cable, Gration detailed the various incentives he had offered the Bashir government during his last trip to Sudan. However, he again refused to explain what consequences might be brought to bear if Khartoum doesn’t comply.

For example, he said, "We recognize that the North would lose some of its sources of financial income [if the South separates] and we would help them take steps to allow additional trade and investment in Sudan, things like debt relief and investment in the non-oil sectors."

Moreover, if Khartoum agrees on a "framework of principles on principles… on some of the post referendum arrangements," the United States would be willing to exchange ambassadors, Gration said. If Bashir implements the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and remedies the situation in Darfur, the United States would consider lifting sanctions, he also said.

"If they complied with all the expectations and the things we are demanding, we would look at rescinding the state sponsor of terrorism designation and the Executive Orders that in many ways put restrictions on their economy, and then also the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act," Gration said, referring to a path to full normalized relations with the United States..

One of the questioners on the call pressed the officials to explain what the pressures or penalties would be if violence increases in Darfur or the government does not move forward with a free and fair ballot, as it has promised.

The NSC’s senior director for African Affairs Michelle Gavin stepped in and said that Gration "has also made it very plain that there are a wide range of consequences that will be deployed if the situation does deteriorate… The strategic choice laid out to the Sudanese actors is very clear and it’s not a choice that only involved benefits."

Gration reiterated, "We’ve made it very clear what the consequences are," without identifying any of them specifically.

Sudan advocacy leaders, who have had a tumultuous relationship with the Obama administration and have generally not been fans of Gration’s style of diplomacy, said that identifying only one half of the policy, the incentives, undermines the policy as a whole.

"It’s a violation of diplomatic tenets to expose only one half of your package," said John Prendergast, CEO of the Enough Project. "When the special envoy stresses so publicly the incremental steps and the incentives, two negative consequences occur. First, the appearance is made that the U.S. doesn’t really have consequences or pressures, which influences calculations in Sudan. Second, the Sudanese government is painted, if they comply, as accepting payments for peace. Very few governments in the world want to be seen in that light."

Prendergast said the U.S. diplomatic effort’s biggest problem continues to be Gration himself, who the advocacy community views as being too chummy with the Bashir government and too willing to praise or endorse its ideas.

"The administration took some very important positive steps in the last few weeks, but they continue to be undermined by the conduct of public diplomacy by the special envoy [Gration]," said Prendergast. One example concerns the future status of Abyei, a contested, oil-rich region that many are concerned may spark conflict.

"The NCP floated a proposal on Abyei that would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic and we’ve received accounts that the special envoy has been supportive of that proposal," he said.

Samantha Power, the NSC’s senior director for multilateral engagement, claimed on the call that the administration’s intensified diplomacy was having a positive effect on the ground.

"We have been able to see some incremental steps, which I think are a tribute to this surge of concentrated diplomacy in advance of the U.N. event," she said.

Power named three examples of progress. Southern Sudan’s registration commission has finally begun the procurement of voter registration materials, $85 million of election related funds have been released in South Sudan, and the head of the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission was finally sworn in, she said.

On this point, Prendergast agreed. "It’s very important to acknowledge that President Obama has engaged directly in a very serious way on Sudan. The manifestation of that is the meeting on Friday in New York, the enhanced work the administration is going to do around the general assembly this week on Sudan, and the deployment of Princeton Lyman to help spearhead an expanded U.S. role in the negotiations."

Obama’s Friday meeting will be hosted by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, and participants include the chairman of the African Union Commission on Sudan Thabo Mbeki, Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, and the president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir.