Yesterday, the Washington Post profiled U.S. Special Envoy Scott Gration and his attempts to engage the Government of Sudan. The article, “Obama Administration Engages Sudanese Regime It Blasted” by Stephanie McCrummen (who accompanied Gration on his most recent trip to the region), outlines critiques of the Special Envoy’s approach:
Although Gration describes the approach as pragmatic and driven by a sense of urgency, his critics here and in the United States say it is dangerously, perhaps willfully, naive. During a recent five-day trip to Sudan, Gration heard from southern officials, displaced Darfurians, rebels and others who complained uniformly that he is being manipulated by government officials who talk peace even as they undermine it.
Still, at the end of the visit, Gration maintained a strikingly different perspective. He had seen signs of goodwill from the government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, he said, and viewed many of the complaints as understandable yet knee-jerk reactions to a government he trusts is ready to change.
“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration, who was appointed in March. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”
As you might imagine, reaction to Gration’s comments have been less than positive. The Save Darfur Coalition, Enough Project and Genocide Intervention Network released a joint statement expressing concern the Administration’s strategy for promoting peace in Sudan:
The quotes from Special Envoy Gration are deeply troubling. The time is well past for the President, Vice President and Secretary of State to exert much-needed leadership over U.S. diplomatic efforts with Sudan or face the prospect that Sudan will descend into much broader violence.
…
Jerry Fowler of the Save Darfur Coalition added, “It’s jarring to hear talk of ‘gold stars’ and ‘smiley faces’ for a regime headed by an indicted war criminal. We have always insisted that the best way to deal with Khartoum is a sensible balance of pressures and incentives. The pressures part of that calculation seems to be missing in General Gration’s comments. The Sudanese government is primarily responsible for creating the political instability in Sudan and bears the brunt of the responsibility for ending it. And blaming the victims for not being more open minded towards their oppressors defies logic.”
We can only hope that as Administration’s national security team meets to discuss the its long overdue Sudan Policy Review the discussion is about a balanced set of incentives and disincentives (or “smiley faces” and “frowney faces”?). We’ll have more on this after the principles meeting later today.
Update: Bec Hamilton and ABC’s Jake Tapper have the White House’s response to yesterday’s article.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition.
