MiaFarrow.org |
Humanitarian and Advocacy Information |
Archives
- December 2017
- January 2013
- July 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- September 2007
| August 12, 2009 |
Is the intelligence info the US claims it is getting from Khartoum worth a hill of beans? Is it worth the suffering of millions ?
Conflicting Priorities Complicate US Policy Toward SudanBy Alan Boswell
U.S. policy in Sudan is conflicted between ending the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and rewarding Khartoum for quietly being a partner in the global battle against terrorism, says a senior analyst at a global intelligence company. The director of sub-Saharan Africa analysis at Stratfor, Mark Schroeder, says two policies in the Obama administration are at odds regarding U.S. policy towards Sudan. "The United States has had to balance two bigger areas of concern: one, the humanitarian conflict in Darfur, and two, Sudanese cooperation in the war on terror," Schroeder said.
The special U.S. envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, testified before a Congressional hearing two weeks ago the United States would have to soon "unwind" sanctions against Sudan to ensure south Sudan would be viable for possible independence in 2011.
The statement was condemned by a number of Darfur advocacy groups in the United States, including an umbrella group for the Darfur diaspora living in America. The Darfur Leaders Network called for the Obama administration to reject any softening of its stance towards the Sudan government, led by President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Gration has since clarified his testimony before Congress, saying in an interview late last week that his remarks had been misunderstood and that the United States is not considering lifting sanctions against Sudan.
According to Schroeder, a mobilized wing in Mr. Obama's Democratic Party considers the crisis in Darfur a key rallying point for justice against humanitarian abuses worldwide. But Schroeder says Khartoum has been a useful behind-the-scenes ally in the global struggle against terrorist groups.
"Now there are other elements within the United States government that have had to cooperate with the Sudanese government since 9/11 in terms of the war on terror," Schroeder said. "And the Sudanese government has been a more background partner to help the United States gather intelligence on international jihadists fighting in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, and some of those jihadists that have come from Sudan and from the Horn of Africa region."
Sudan, which at one time served as the base for Osama bin Laden, remains on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism.
Darfur rebel groups reject Khartoum control over the region. Many fear any easing of sanctions against Sudan would only empower the central government and strengthen Khartoum's position at the Darfur negotiation table.