On Monday, Maggie Fick had an important piece in ForeignPolicy.com about the “danger in celebrating too early.” While we are pleased to see that — thus far — the referendum voting process has gone off without significant complications, there are still “difficult negotiations and thorny details” to be resolved before Southern Sudan becomes independent.  As Maggie writes:

That leaves just a few months for some of the most contentious issues in Sudan’s recent history to be resolved. The parties will have to decide who becomes a citizen, a tricky question since tens of thousands of southerners now live in the north. A security arrangement along the border will have to be worked out — as will the actual border demarcation itself. It’s also not clear yet how north and south Sudan will share oil wealth, much of which will be concentrated in the new independent state. But perhaps most controversial of all is the status of Abyei, which lies along the disputed border…

There is a good chance that the negotiations will move too slowly to meet the July deadline. Insider accounts of the AU-brokered talks suggest that Khartoum is intentionally stalling. Moderator and former South African President Thabo Mbeki has reportedly chided Khartoum on at least one occasion for what appears to be a lack of seriousness in the negotiations…

And what happens if the deadline isn’t met at all? No matter where the talks stand in July, Southern Sudan is likely to move forward with its claim for independence. And that, many fear, could escalate in the worst-case scenario into a new north-south war.

Senator John Kerry was deeply engaged on Sudan issues in the run-up to the referendum. Over the weekend he made helpful statements about the need for international actors to fully engage on a Darfur peace process, but his comments at a press event on Monday in Khartoum strike me as potentially problematic.  First, Senator Kerry overstated the commitments President Bashir’s regime has made:

And the leaders in the North have made it clear by embracing this referendum, and in President Bashir’s visit here just a few days ago he made it clear, that they are prepared to embrace and recognize the results and, no matter what, help to build this new future.

As Maggie makes clear, even if Khartoum “accepts” the referendum, it can take other measures to impede a peaceful divorce. Ample evidence suggests this is a real possibility.

Senator Kerry went on to say that remaining issues—including “the resolution of Darfur”—could be dealt with “over the course of the next weeks and months.” This seems unrealistically optimistic. A peace agreement addressing the fundamental issues for Darfur needs to be negotiated, with civil society participation, and implemented in order to achieve a “resolution of Darfur.”

Urgency is welcome. Hurried efforts to find quick fixes would be a mistake. Checking the boxes in a minimalist way to justify normalizing relations between the United States and Sudan would be counterproductive. While recognizing the need to make incentives credible, a rush to reward Khartoum at this time is unwarranted. If the international community needs a reminder of this, it should look no further than Darfur where 32,000 civilians were newly displaced by fighting in December. It’s particularly important that Senator Kerry, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be willing to push back against the Administration if it seeks to give carrots before durable progress is made on the key issues.