"The Bush administration has spent years not only talking at very senior levels with one of the world's worst tyrants, who is responsible for genocide, but also reportedly offered the regime major concessions in exchange for minor steps and rolled out the red carpet for some of its most reprehensible officials." -- Susan Rice, May 2008

In March, President Obama launched a "high-level, urgent review" of US policy toward the Sudan. As a candidate, Barack Obama campaigned hard on toughening US policy toward the Sudan and bringing an end to the fighting in Darfur, which he described routinely as "genocide". As a Senator, Mr. Obama visited Darfurian refugee camps in Chad in 2006 and identified the issue as a priority. Today the Obama Administration in a stunning reversal unveiled its new Sudan policy. From the New York Times:

Laying out the basic outlines of his Sudan policy, President Obama said Monday that he would renew "tough sanctions" against the Khartoum government and increase pressure if it failed to improve the dire situation in Darfur -- but he also held out the possibility of incentives if Sudan cooperated.

"As the United States and our international partners meet our responsibility to act, the government of Sudan must meet its responsibilities to take concrete steps in a new direction," Mr. Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

The strategy, worked out after months of intensive debate, is meant to build pressure on Sudan to end the abuses that have left millions of people dead or displaced in its vast Darfur region. It places a greater emphasis on incentives than the Bush administration policy, but officials were quick to stress that there were also additional punishments on the table.

The president of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has been charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for his role in human rights abuses in Darfur, and the new policy has come under criticism from some human rights advocates for its willingness to engage with his government.

A Sudanese presidential adviser, Ghazi Salahadin, said after the policy was announced that the new approach had some "positive points" and represented a "new Obama spirit," but he expressed disappointment that the president had referred explicitly to genocide, Reuters reported from the capital, Khartoum.

Washington officials offered few details on Monday about the policy beyond its general aims. The United States, Mr. Obama's statement said, would work to end gross human rights abuses, including genocide, in Darfur, seek implementation of the peace agreement that ended a war between northern and southern Sudan, and ensure that Sudan not serve as a haven for terrorists.

"If the government of Sudan acts to improve the situation on the ground and to advance peace, there will be incentives; if it does not, then there will be increased pressure imposed by the United States and the international community," the statement said.

Speaking at a news conference at the State Department, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, retired, the president's special envoy to Sudan, and Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, did not provide details on what incentives might be offered to Sudan. Mrs. Clinton said that the administration had "a menu of incentives and disincentives, political and economic, that we will be looking to," but added that it was in a classified addendum to the strategy document.

One does not does give "incentives" to Omar al Bashir. One arrests Omar al Bashir for crimes against humanity. The Administration's embrace of realpolitik is fast becoming a disgrace. This Administration is embracing tyrants while spurning meetings with the Dalai Lama.

The US Sudan strategy announced today includes, "A frank dialogue by the Special Envoy with the Government about what needs to be accomplished, how the bilateral relationship can improve if conditions transform, and how the government would become even more isolated if conditions remain the same or worsen. The dialogue must be based on a policy of 'verify, then trust.'" It goes on to say, "Backsliding by any party will be met with credible, meaningful disincentives leveraged by Washington and the international community." In other words, a slap on the wrist. By embracing Omar al Bashir and extending him a lifeline, the Obama Administration has condoned genocide against not just Darfurians but the numerous peoples of the South Sudan.

There are, no doubt, limits to American power. The reality is that the West has little to no leverage on the Sudan. But to offer "incentives" to a government that Obama himself once described as having "offended the standards of our common humanity" is a bridge too far for me. Though the Administration is describing the approach as pragmatic and driven by a sense of urgency, it is willfully naive to expect that Omar al Bashir is even interested in changing his behavoir. How does one even attempt to reform a genocidal maniac?

Well if you're General Scott Gration, the Special Envoy to Sudan, you start offering "gold stars and cookies". On his return from meeting the charming mass murderer al Bashir in Khartoum, General Gration said "We've got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries -- they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."

You have got to be kidding me.

There's more...

Before her arrival in the DR Congo, the former Zaire, a coalition of 88 humanitarian and human rights groups issued a statement calling on Secretary Clinton to press the Congolese government and the U.N. Mission in Congo, or MONUC, to instate more effective measures to protect civilians and bring perpetrators to justice.

"The U.N.-backed offensive that was supposed to make life better for the people of eastern Congo is instead becoming a human tragedy," said Marcel Stoessel, head of Oxfam in DRC. "Secretary Clinton needs to make it very clear that US support for the U.N.'s efforts in Congo is not a blank check and that civilians should be protected."

UN peacekeepers have been backing Congolese military operations, known as Kimia II, against the Rwandan Hutu rebel group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), since March. This support followed earlier joint operations between the Congolese and Rwandan armies against the rebel group.

As one of the main financial backers of the UN peacekeeping force, the US government has an opportunity to spotlight the deficiencies in civilian protection in a way that will reverberate within MONUC and the Congolese government and bring this nasty affair to an end. The eastern Congo is the world's deadliest conflict zone. The war in the DR Congo has been on-going now for 15 years in one form or another. The conflict has claimed an estimated 5.4 million lives, the largest loss of life since World War II.

The origins of the conflict lie across the border in Rwanda and the genocide committed there in 1994 when the extremist Hutu militias responsible for that tragedy crossed the border into what is now the DR Congo. Rwanda, now run by a Tutsi government, has twice invaded its much larger neighbor, in pursuit of Hutu militias aiming to finish them. Then in 1998, a five-year war - sometimes termed "Africa's world war" began drawing in Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Rwanda. The formal war ended in 2003 with the formation of a transitional government in the DR Congo and subsequent elections but the horrors continued.

There's more...

The US Senate Foreign Relations wants the Obama Administration to create a comprehensive strategy for Sudan. Senators are pushing for a plan prior to the 2011 referendum, that they say, could break the country apart. Such is the folly of Senators. There is no compelling reason to hold the Sudan together other than to facilitate the exploitation of the country's vast mineral wealth and to not offend Arab interests. The other argument is that it would spur secessionist pressures elsewhere. While that can't be denied, the costs of forging nations out of unwilling populations are not insignificant.

The Southern Sudan is scheduled to hold an independence referendum on whether or not it should remain as a part of the Sudan sometime before March 2011. This is part of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement between the central government in Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Army that brought a cessation in a bloody 22 year long civil war that has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. The Southern Sudan is approximately 45% of the country.

The US has historically been against redefining colonial borders in Africa and Asia. It has long been my thesis that these borders, drawn of European whim and fancy, contribute to instability across the world. Artificial states, and the Sudan is a prime example, are inherently unstable, and it is my view that the interests of peace and development are better served when borders reflect the wishes of their inhabitants.

There's more...

President Obama met with All Africa reporters Charles Cobb, Jr., Reed Kramer and Tamela Hultman at the White House to discuss issues facing the continent ahead of his upcoming trip to Ghana. The interview was recorded on July 3, 2009.

The President highlights the relationship between good goverance and prosperity. It is in this light that Administration chose Ghana as the first country to visit in sub-Saharan Africa. Ghana last year accomplished something very few other African countries have managed to do. Ghana held its third successive increasingly fair, free and transparent election in which the opposition managed to eke out a narrow win.

Africa gets scant attention in the US media. Most the coverage centers either on exploitation of its natural resources, brutal dictatorships, piracy off the coast of Somalia and on various humanitarian crisis that plague the continent. But there are African success stories and many more works-in-progress.

The transcript from All Africa:

We asked visitors to our site, allAfrica.com, what they might be interested in with respect to your policy. And as you might imagine, the responses are everywhere: conflict resolution, development issues, trade issues, et cetera. But they and we have one immediate question: How is it that you happened to pick Ghana as the first place to visit in sub-Saharan Africa?

Well, part of the reason is because Ghana has now undergone a couple of successful elections in which power was transferred peacefully, even a very close election. I think that the new president, President Mills, has shown himself committed to the rule of law, to the kinds of democratic commitments that ensure stability in a country. And I think that there is a direct correlation between governance and prosperity. Countries that are governed well, that are stable, where the leadership recognizes that they are accountable to the people and that institutions are stronger than any one person have a track record of producing results for the people. And we want to highlight that.

And I assume that you'd like to see a lot more 'Ghanas' in Africa. And part of your policy would be, I assume, to encourage that.

Absolutely.

How?

Well, part of it is lifting up successful models. And so, by traveling to Ghana, we hope to highlight the effective governance that they have in place.

I don't think that we can expect that every country is going to undergo these transitions in the same way at the same time. But we have seen progress in democracy and transparency and rule of law, in the protection of property rights, in anti-corruption efforts. We have seen progress over the last several years; in some cases, though, we're also seeing some backsliding. In my father's own country of Kenya, I'm concerned about how the political parties do not seem to be moving into a permanent reconciliation that would allow the country to move forward. And Kenya is not alone in some of the problems that we've seen of late, post-election or pre-election.

And we just want to make sure that people are mindful that this isn't just some abstract notion that we're trying to impose on Africa. There is a very practical, pragmatic consequence to political instability and corruption when it comes to whether people can feed their families, educate their children, and we think that Africa - the African continent is a place of extraordinary promise as well as challenges. We're not going to be able to fulfill those promises unless we see better governance.

There's more...

In mid-April Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a scathing report on the East African nation  of Eritrea accusing the government of President Issayas Afeworki of turning the strategically located country on the Red Sea into one giant prison complete with underground cells and metal shipping containers awaiting any dissenters. Indeed, Afeworki has been ranked as one of the world's top ten dictators, a dubious honour to say the least. That's disturbing enough but recently President Afewerki forced the United Nations Mission to Eritrea out of country by cutting off all supplies to the UN-mission. Fears among Horn of Africa watchers is that Eritrea might be preparing for another senseless war with Ethiopia with whom the country shares a long and ill-defined border.

Furthermore, Somalia's new government led by President Sharif Sheik Ahmed is accusing Eritrea of arming insurgent groups in Somalia. The allegation is a repeat of events two years ago, when the United Nations accused Eritrea of secretly sending weapons to Somalia's militant al-Shabaab group.

Now the BBC is reporting that US is concerned:

The US says it is seriously concerned by reports Eritrea is supplying arms to foreign fighters and Islamic hardliners fighting government forces in Somalia.

"This as a disturbing development," President Barack Obama's top official on Africa, Jonnie Carson, told the BBC.

Eritrea denies any involvement in arming or financing Islamist militants trying to overthrow the government.

Following a week of violence, 100 people are dead and 30,000 more have fled Somalia's capital, Mogadishu.

There have been a number of reports of foreign fighters, with possible links to al-Qaeda, fighting alongside hardline Islamists of al-Shabaab and Hisbul-Islam, said Mr Carson, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

"We're extremely worried about the reports."

"There seem to be fairly serious and creditable reports that al Shabaab does have, amongst its fighters, a number of individuals of South Asian and Chechen origin," said Mr Carson.

"This is a very disturbing situation and reflects the seriousness of the problem in Somalia."

Mr Carson also expressed concern about flights from Eritrea were carrying weapons and ammunition to Somalia to supply al-Shabaab.

"There have been numerous reports that the government of Eritrea has, in fact, been supplying weapons and munitions to al-Shabaab.

"These are reports that we do find credible," he said.

Like its neighbour Sudan, Eritrea has too found a sponsor in China and it is about time the United States bring these matters to the attention of the Chinese. The arming of the Al Qaeda linked al-Shabaab serves no one, least of all the Somalis.

There's more...