(Thumbnail image from UN Photo)

“Back in Washington there’s been a shift when it comes with dealings with Sudan.  During the presidential campaign President Obama had harsh words for the country’s government and especially its actions in the Darfur region, but today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton officially changed the policy from isolation to engagement by offering incentives to the government if it cooperates.”

U.S. President Barack Obama announced a change in the foreign policy toward Sudan. The new strategy focuses on engaging with the government in Khartoum rather than isolating it with sanctions like in the past. Included in the policy is a combination of incentives and disincentives that the media called a policy of “carrots and sticks”.

We’re taking a look at the policy shift with perspectives from Al Jazeera English, Voice of America, CNN and the Sudan Tribune.

Al Jazeera English’s Inside Story program highlights one piece of the shifting U.S. strategy to push the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur. It asks a London-based academic if the goal is realistic.

 

“… The main contradiction in Darfur policy of the United States is the insistence or support for the ICC and for what they call international justice in Darfur, and they claim that they want to cooperate with this Sudanese government in resolving this issue. […] because if you are saying that this is genocide and that the government is guilty of genocide, then you cannot have peace with a government that is committing genocide.”

Voice of America
highlights one approach the U.S. government used to distance themselves from leaders who commit war crimes or genocide.

“A senior administration official who spoke on terms of anonymity said the Obama administration has no intention of dealing directly with President Bashir, but will speak with other people in the Sudanese government about Darfur and North-South issues.”

CNN brings us a pessimistic view from the Heritage Foundation.

 

“Has the missile threat gone down? No. Is Russia’s foreign policy less aggressive? No. Is North Korea more predictable? No. Has Sudan done anything to improve human rights situation on the ground? No. I mean, show me a success here.”

With all skepticism, the Sudan Tribune offers a positive reaction from Sudanese officials. The paper highlights quotes from a press statement given by the Sudanese Vice President.

“…there would be no logic to continue with the sanctions in the country if the issues highlighted in the policy were addressed and fully resolved…the new US policy would help [the Sudanese] government in trying to speedily curb the ongoing inter and intra-tribal fighting in the region.”

So what do you think will the new policy of incentives and disincentives bring about peace in Sudan?

U.S. Shifts Sudan Policy

by
0
Transcript
Oct 26, 2009

U.S. Shifts Sudan Policy

(Thumbnail image from UN Photo)

“Back in Washington there’s been a shift when it comes with dealings with Sudan.  During the presidential campaign President Obama had harsh words for the country’s government and especially its actions in the Darfur region, but today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton officially changed the policy from isolation to engagement by offering incentives to the government if it cooperates.”

U.S. President Barack Obama announced a change in the foreign policy toward Sudan. The new strategy focuses on engaging with the government in Khartoum rather than isolating it with sanctions like in the past. Included in the policy is a combination of incentives and disincentives that the media called a policy of “carrots and sticks”.

We’re taking a look at the policy shift with perspectives from Al Jazeera English, Voice of America, CNN and the Sudan Tribune.

Al Jazeera English’s Inside Story program highlights one piece of the shifting U.S. strategy to push the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur. It asks a London-based academic if the goal is realistic.

 

“… The main contradiction in Darfur policy of the United States is the insistence or support for the ICC and for what they call international justice in Darfur, and they claim that they want to cooperate with this Sudanese government in resolving this issue. […] because if you are saying that this is genocide and that the government is guilty of genocide, then you cannot have peace with a government that is committing genocide.”

Voice of America
highlights one approach the U.S. government used to distance themselves from leaders who commit war crimes or genocide.

“A senior administration official who spoke on terms of anonymity said the Obama administration has no intention of dealing directly with President Bashir, but will speak with other people in the Sudanese government about Darfur and North-South issues.”

CNN brings us a pessimistic view from the Heritage Foundation.

 

“Has the missile threat gone down? No. Is Russia’s foreign policy less aggressive? No. Is North Korea more predictable? No. Has Sudan done anything to improve human rights situation on the ground? No. I mean, show me a success here.”

With all skepticism, the Sudan Tribune offers a positive reaction from Sudanese officials. The paper highlights quotes from a press statement given by the Sudanese Vice President.

“…there would be no logic to continue with the sanctions in the country if the issues highlighted in the policy were addressed and fully resolved…the new US policy would help [the Sudanese] government in trying to speedily curb the ongoing inter and intra-tribal fighting in the region.”

So what do you think will the new policy of incentives and disincentives bring about peace in Sudan?

View More
Comments
Newsy
www1