In an editorial this morning, The Wall Street Journal calls out Sudan activists in the U.S. for not criticizing the Obama administration's new policy on Sudan, announced last week, which includes new "incentives and disincentives"--which happen to be classified--for the Khartoum government:
The larger wonder is how all of this can go down so smoothly with those in the human-rights community who have championed Darfur and assailed the Bush Administration for not doing enough. Instead, they are congratulating Mr. Obama, in part because he didn't take the even softer line on Sudan being advocated by U.S. special envoy J. Scott Gration. Perhaps the Darfur activists should ask why Khartoum instantly praised the new policy for representing the "new Obama spirit."
In part, the Journal answers its own question: Sudan advocates were put off by Lt. Gen. Scott Gration's (ret.) comment
in September that the U.S. should start handing out more "gold stars"
and "cookies" to the Sudanese government, and the administration's
policy announcement, though light on specifics, reassured them that
sticks, as well as carrots, are part of the plan--even if it didn't go
as far as some of the rhetoric during the campaign, which the Journal
rightly points to.
But for Sudan advocates, the policy isn't necessarily the point: while
they liked the new posture the administration announced, they're quick
to tell you that that everything depends on how it's
implemented--whether the administration makes a commitment to Sudan,
and whether it makes it a priority.
In that regard, the response from Sudan advocates was less than congratulatory.
On a conference call with reporters after the policy was announced,
leaders of Sudan advocacy groups said they're waiting for President
Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
to take a more personal involvement in Sudan--for them each,
personally, to work their relationships with international leaders to
rally multilateral pressure on Khartoum--before they pat the
administration on the back.
"This is a statement of principles until actually built into reality,
and so that's really where the game is now," Enough Project co-founder
John Prendergast said.
"If we don't see demarches, we don't see the deployment of senior
officials, we don't see calls being made, we don't see Ambassador Rice
meeting with all the different permanent representatives in the United
Nations that matter, then we know that they're actually sweeping this
one under the rug again," Prendergast said.
The Journal is right that advocates have settled for something less
than campaign rhetoric. But praising the policy while calling for
prioritization and engagement seems to be the advocates' own version of
carrots and sticks.
