The president faces a critical decision on how to move forward on Sudan–including one that may result in a severe shift in approach in U.S. policy nearly 100 days before the referendum vote that could divide Africa’s largest country.

Additionally, a letter signed by 68 organizations is being sent to the president on the same topic. Both the ads and the letter advocate for a balanced Sudan policy that includes both incentives and pressures.

You can join the call for a robust, balanced Sudan policy by taking action today.

Please spread the word:

Tweet This:

Tell @BarackObama to make the right choice for #SudanNow. http://tinyurl.com/2a3wh6w @WhiteHouse

Share on Facebook:

Visit the White House Facebook Page and post: “Mr. President, please make the right decision on Sudan. Act on Sudan Now. www.SudanActionNow.com” or a message of your own.

And, take a moment to watch the new video from Stop Genocide Now.

The paper concludes that “As the review of the benchmarks makes clear, the situation in Sudan remains one of considerable concern. The deputies committee of the U.S. government charged with reviewing the situation in Sudan on a quarterly basis does not appear to be functioning as designed, and has not resulted in clear policy choices being presented to President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and respective agency heads. Indeed, one of the few consistent trends in U.S. policy toward Sudan has been the deep divisions in perspective between that of the U.S. special envoy and the leadership of the State Department and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

While it is obvious, it bears repeating: Africa’s largest country is likely to split into two in a matter of months, yet there is not a coherent policy approach from the U.S. government and that has undercut its ability to shape effective international diplomacy toward Sudan.

While the administration has made a calculated effort to avoid confrontational language with Sudan, it now appears the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and the ruling NCP has understandably interpreted the lack of condemnation for repeated abuses as either disinterest or acceptance. The time has come for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to own Sudan policy far more directly—or the risk of further missteps, miscalculation, and violence will only grow.”

Learn more about the Sudan Policy Review

Now that the dust is settling from the release of the Obama administration’s Sudan strategy we can begin to assess the landscape. The greatest virtues of the strategy are that it lays out the path the administration intends to follow and provides a basis for the advocacy community to hold the administration accountable. At the same time, it makes clear that the U.S. policy can take different paths depending on the actions of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and other actors. Although it provides principles for deciding what path to take, the decisions themselves have yet to be made. Our advocacy role will be to push President Obama and the administration to make the right decisions.

The basic guidelines for deciding which path to take seem right. In U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s words, the focus will be on “concrete and tangible progress” before any incentives are provided. Moreover, the new U.S. policy provides clarity that not only will there be no rewards for the status quo, there will be consequences if it does not change for the better.

A huge open question is how engaged the President will be in implementing this new policy. His absence from the public roll-out was not encouraging. It sent a message to Khartoum and key heads of state around the world that he has delegated Sudan to others and that he does not plan to personally lead the effort to end the crisis in Darfur and promote peace in all of Sudan. A critical test of his commitment will be whether he makes Sudan a priority when he meets with Chinese President Hu Jintao in a few weeks. I for one will be watching closely, and calling him out if he doesn’t.

As for the new strategy, one thing we should be clear about is that the issue has never been engagement or non-engagement with the NCP. Rather, it has been the terms of engagement, which for nine months have been totally unclear, even worrisome. Now the terms are clearer on paper; we will have to see in practice.

Another misunderstood issue has been the role of Special Envoy Scott Gration. Before release of the strategy, there was an understandable tendency to try to infer the terms of engagement from his public statements. Because many of those statements expressed optimism about Khartoum’s responsiveness to incentives, the public was left to wonder if the Obama administration was focused only on incentives without requiring real change on the ground. We now know the store will not be given away unilaterally; the U.S. will “verify, then trust.”

Although General Gration will play a leading role in implementing this strategy, it is clear that he does not have carte blanche. The strategy is a product of the interagency process and reflects the policy views of a range of officials. Going forward, progress on the ground (or lack thereof) and decisions on incentives and disincentives will be reviewed quarterly at a senior level.

Within that context, General Gration should be given the chance to implement this policy. Having heard him explain his views in greater detail than is conveyed in the media, I believe he has the potential to succeed in what is an enormously difficult mission. That is not to suggest that we always see eye-to-eye – we definitely do not. But he is clear-eyed about the dangerous characters he is dealing with. And he is committed to pursuing the policy set by the President.

Some have called for General Gration to be fired. The reality is that if he were suddenly dismissed, it could be months before a new special envoy took his place. A void in the special envoy position would hobble any implementation of U.S. policy, and Sudan would hurtle toward the scheduled elections and the southern referendum with little diplomatic involvement or influence from the United States.

While the new administration policy has many of the right elements, there are concerns, many of which were recently raised on the Save Darfur blog. The biggest strategic level concern is that those elements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) focused on opening up political space in Sudan not be traded away for conflict resolution in Darfur or conflict prevention in southern Sudan.

The most important long-term need facing Sudan is the creation of a political space in which Sudanese can resolve the country’s issues without the use of extreme violence. The CPA presents a framework for creating that space, but the CPA elements crucial to that framework are the ones whose implementation is most seriously lacking. Now, elections are six months away and there have been no meaningful steps toward permitting freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of movement or curbing the arbitrary powers of the security services. Judging from the travesty of the census, the ruling NCP does not intend to fulfill its CPA obligation to open up political space. This is a status quo that must be changed if peace is to be promoted.

Tactically, the biggest concern is how much of a priority Sudan is for President Obama. He said all the right things while he was in the Senate and during the campaign, including pledging to bring “unstinting resolve” to Sudan policy if elected.

For the new policy to work, General Gration can’t go it alone. The President must lead in creating a real coalition of key heads of state to support the strategy laid out last week and push for concrete and lasting change in Sudan. Now is the time for him to show the resolve he promised.

Jerry Fowler is the president of the Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 groups committed to ending the genocide in Darfur.

In Refugees International’s October 19 press release, Acting President Joel Charny highlighted the strengths of the new US policy. It also reminded us that while we strive for effective multilateral engagement, we cannot forget the plight of those that have already been victimized by the conflict, for whom achieving justice is one of our biggest responsibilities to the people of Sudan.

It is unfortunate that the policy failed to mention US support in improving the conditions of displaced Sudanese people. Earlier this year when Refugees International traveled to south Sudan, we documented the grave conditions throughout the south and the severe lack of access to basic services. Instead of focusing on politically motivated returns (as the governments of Sudan have done), it is critical that the US support reintegration projects for those who have already returned home, but are struggling to rebuild their communities. Safe and consistent access to water, education, health services, and livelihood opportunities will help mitigate tensions that are steadily on the rise. This is a crucial link to security in Sudan that the US policy did not address.

It is also worthy to note the US has proactively sought open dialogue with all of the various local and national stakeholders in Sudan. This is an admirable venture on the part of the administration and reminds us of the importance of community based reconciliation and justice. It is also comforting to know that the US will hold Sudan to an “assessment of progress [that is] based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground.” Likewise, it is critical that those changes in conditions be linked to humanitarian access and the protection of humanitarian aid workers. We can not forget the international and national relief agencies that were banned and expelled from Darfur in response to the International Criminal Court decision to indict President al-Bashir. The operating environment in Darfur remains hostile and vulnerable civilians are left to pay the price. The Sudanese government must show a real commitment to eliminating bureaucratic impediments and allowing and facilitating access to needed services throughout Sudan.

I hope that the Obama administration truly makes Sudan a priority on its agenda and not only takes advantage of the anticipation surrounding the 2010 election and 2011 referendum. A long term investment in rebuilding Sudan is necessary and the United States must step up and lead the way for the international community.

Limnyuy Konglim is an Advocacy Associate with Refugees International.

This unusual moment of cohesion demonstrates why effective implementation of the American plan will be paramount in achieving the objectives set out in the policy review. When all sides praise your plan, despite having contradictory interests and motives, you must realize that your work has only just begun.  What will shape these actors long-term interpretation of the Obama administration’s policy are not the principles or strategies found in the review, but the very next steps in the engagement process.

For instance, Sudanese presidential adviser Ghazi Salah Al-Deen told the Sudanese news agency that the lack of any reference to military intervention “is important” and that the plan constitutes a “new spirit” for the Obama administration.  At the same time though, he criticized the administration’s description of Darfur as a “genocide” and said that the Sudanese government would not respond to a “policy of pressure” which it considers disrespectful and reflects “old mindsets” that found their way into the policy review (article in Arabic).  The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) deputy secretary-general Anne Itto remarked simply: “The policy is in line with the SPLM position.”

As for the Darfuri rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) led by Abdel Wahid Al-Nur hailed the affirmation of the “genocide” label for the Darfur conflict and said that the administration’s calls for “conflict suspension and providing security to civilians” were completely in line with the SLM position.  However, he then criticized the efforts of Gration thus far stating that the special envoy had turned these principles “upside down” by making “genocide legitimate” (presumably by engaging with Sudanese officials) and “creating new [rebel] groups.”  A spokesperson for the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) also said the policy “show[s] a good direction to resolve the conflict,” but then urged Washington to realize that Khartoum only want to buy time and lacks “the will to achieve peace.”  The spokesperson concluded: “The US must press Khartoum to respond positively to genuine international will looking to bring peace.”

Of course, Gration and the administration will make critical decisions soon that upend this consensus about the tone and substance of American policy toward Sudan.  All parties have expressed a desire for U.S. leadership, but they have different expectations and fears regarding what American engagement actually means.  From the first day of implementation (today!), Gration and others in the administration must remain clear about their intentions and objectives – as well as their expectations for Sudan’s leaders.

Such an approach will mean that the United States immediately:

• Holds the Sudanese government accountable for ongoing human rights abuses in Darfur – such as its refusal to acknowledge the widespread incidences of rape, its obstruction of the provision of humanitarian assistance and the full unhindered deployment of UNAMID, and the use of disproportionate force by the Sudanese Armed Forces
• Pressures the National Congress Party to create an atmosphere suitable to holding free and fair elections, and then make public the measures by which the administration will judge the credibility of elections
• Pushes the National Congress Party to pass critical pieces of legislation pertaining to the national security laws, freedom of press, freedom of association, and the 2011 referendum
• Condemns the Sudanese government’s ongoing harassment of Sudanese human rights defenders
• Urges the Government of South Sudan to tackle potentially explosive corruption issues and to coordinate with UNMIS to enhance police and SPLA capacity to ensure civilian protection
• Encourages the Darfuri rebel movements to adopt a unified negotiating stance for upcoming talks that includes a role for civil society representatives, including women

Emergencies and crises will arise in the next few months that will fully test the administration’s commitment to its stated policies of resolving Darfur and implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.  By taking the above steps now, the U.S. can assure all sides of the seriousness and substance of its policy – and, equally important, it can clearly demonstrate what is expected of Sudan’s leaders as the country and its people wrestle with the significant challenges before it.

5 things you can do:

• Read the Administration’s Sudan Policy Review
• Call President Obama and tell him to turn the plan into action
• Watch today’s press conference
• View our checklist for an effective Sudan strategy
• Read President Obama’s Statement on the policy review

Secretary of State Clinton said that the roll out:

It reflects the Administration’s seriousness, sense of urgency, and collective agreement about how best to address the complex challenges that have prevented resolution of the crisis in Darfur and full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Read the full transcript here.

Update: You can read a transcript of the background briefing with senior Administration officials held immediately following the press conference

President Obama and Scott Gration in April (White House Photo/Pete Souza)

This morning’s release of the Sudan policy review covered many of the main points outlined in the Blueprint for Peace and our checklist for an effective Sudan strategy.

Most important, the administration’s policy lays out three strategic U.S. objectives:

1. A definitive end to conflict, gross human rights abuses, and genocide in Darfur.
2. Implementation of the North-South CPA that results in a peaceful post-2011 Sudan, or an orderly path toward two separate and viable states at peace with each other.
3. Ensure that Sudan does not provide a safe haven for international terrorists.

The Coalition has long advocated a comprehensive policy approach to resolving Sudan’s crises.  Securing peace in Darfur, resolving tensions over the implementation of the CPA, and preventing Sudan from becoming a terrorist safe haven will benefit all Sudanese.

What matters most, however, is effective implementation.  This should ensure:

1. Incentives should not be provided before there is concrete and lasting progress on resolving Sudan’s interlocking crises, opening political space for Sudanese to determine their future and protecting human rights.
2. The U.S. must generate multilateral support for both incentives and pressures.
3. We need to see substantial personal involvement from President Obama – for example, he must make Sudan a priority when he goes to China next month.

The policy outlines pressures and incentives, but the Coalition believes that only an evidence-based approach towards evaluating progress on the ground is warranted given the Government of Sudan’s long history of broken promises.  The emphasis by the administration on witnessing verifiable progress before providing incentives to the regime is welcome, as is its stated determination to punish those who do not cooperate.

The policy states that “sustained political will to address Sudan’s tough challenges in the international community is sometimes lacking.  American leadership is essential to a more effective multilateral approach.”   Increased American leadership to build a strong international coalition, such as that was built for the CPA, to address Sudan’s myriad of crises is essential.  President Obama, along with Secretary of State Clinton and Special Envoy Gration, must make this a top priority.

On topic of Presidential leadership, the State Department’s policy document highlights the roll of the President’s Special Envoy, Ret. Maj. Gen. Scott Gration.  While the Coalition appreciates the efforts made to date by the Special Envoy, he will need to be backed institutionally and internationally by President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, and the rest of the Cabinet.  The entire administration must make Sudan a higher priority than it has been to date and not leave all responsibility on the Special Envoy’s shoulders.

We will continue to monitor this policy and its implementation.  We hope you will join us in doing so, and ensuring that that this policy successfully helps to bring peace to Sudan.