Its his thoughts about current U.S. policy toward Sudan now that the official Sudan Policy Review has been completed.  He also gives a shout-out to my blog from last week on the necessity of immediate implementation.

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.

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.

First posted at Save Darfur….please also see my colleague Robert’s post with our initial reaction to the Sudan Policy Review.

This morning Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice, and General Gration all spoke of the “sense of urgency” in dealing with Sudan’s interlocking crises.  Two breaking headlines from Sudan today confirm the urgent necessity of finding a durable solution to Darfur and preventing the collapse of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).

First, Bloomberg News is reporting that the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement announced today that it will boycott parliament for a week to pressure the country’s ruling party to amend bills including one that gives “unlimited powers” to intelligence services.  This move comes after a weekend where the National Congress Party and SPLM reached a tentative compromise on the referendum.Yet, this progress was not enough to meet the SPLM’s ultimatum last week that gave parliament a week to make significant progress on a number of pieces of critical legislation:

“We want to see a parliamentary schedule for the discussion of all the nine laws,” Yasser Arman, head of the former rebel group’s northern sector, told reporters today in Khartoum. “The current security law allows for detention, search and arrest, and gives a lot of immunity to the security body. And this is against the constitution.”

Arman goes on to say that the NCP now has until October 26; otherwise the SPLM will boycott the remaining sessions in parliament that run until November 30.

The other troubling news comes from UNAMID, the African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur, which released the following warning about a noticeable increase in military activities in Darfur:

UNAMID personnel in the field have recently observed a sizable and unusual increase in military activities by the Government of Sudan (GoS) and Sudan Liberation Army/Abdul Wahid Faction (SLA/AW) forces, notably in the areas of Sortony and Kabkabiya in North Darfur. UNAMID is gravely concerned by this build-up as it may signal the impending start of a new cycle of armed confrontations in the area.

UNAMID wishes to emphasize that armed clashes invariably result in casualties and fatalities among combatants and in dire consequences for the civilian population, with loss of life, destruction of property, and massive displacement, thus negating the gains made so far in attempts to restore peace to Darfur.

UNAMID solemnly calls on all parties involved to refrain from resorting to violence and reiterates its conviction that the only way for a peaceful resolution of the conflict is through dialogue and negotiations.

These troubling reports demonstrate why – as Secretary Clinton remarked – the conflicts and issues in Sudan “cannot be ignored or willed away” and why the U.S. government must immediately begin implementing a policy that “empowers the people of Sudan to solve their own problems.”  The status quo no doubt portends the worse for Sudanese.  The complex diplomatic tasks at hand require – as we have called – the full leveraging of every relevant piece of the U.S. government and the generation from the administration of multilateral, coordinated support.