It is somewhat pessimsitic, but less so when you isolate the comments of Princeton Lyman, a career diplomat (with CFR). The pessimism comes from the quote of one of the ruling party members, who feels they should be given more.
Hamdi says if the South votes to leave — as expected — Sudan will give up a huge chunk of land and, with it, the majority of its oil. He says the government wants more than just the removal of its name from a list.
"We want actually a normal political and economic relationship with the United States," Hamdi says.
But, being removed from the terrorist list is the necessary prerequisite for normal relations. What is interesting is the article's conclusion -
"Lyman says he worries about violence next year but a little less so than he did a few months back. He says that's because the South looks increasingly determined to hold the referendum and probably vote for secession.
And the North is struggling to come to grips with that."
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131323670/southern-sudan-voters-mull-independence-bidOne major part of the change in the last two months, was Kerry's two trips - at Obama's request.
The really delicate nature of the problem there is that the President of the country is a war criminal and Darfur is still an issue - even when this is resolved. From various articles - including this excellent CSM one,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2010/1111/Out-of-sticks-US-offers-Sudan-a-carrot-to-let-South-Sudan-secede , the problem is that there are few "sticks" the US could threaten - and as this will not resolve important issues very few carrots can be given. The Economist has an interesting article that explains the role oil plays here -
http://www.economist.com/node/17472824?story_id=17472824&fsrc=rssThe good thing in the quotes from the North Sudan leader is that he is open in wanting normal political and economic relations with the US. It sounds like Obama and Kerry have been laying out a path towards that - but (wisely) doling out improvements sparsely because much much more needs to be done - as can be seen by Kerry mentioning Darfur at every step.
In a Cantor like act, the former Bush Ambassador has attacked Obama's efforts in an op-ed in a Sudan paper -
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article36910 Given that the ICC indicted the Sudanese President in early 2009 - the Bush "cooling off" period that was suppose to result in the 2011 referendum was clearly not working about 4 years (it started in 2005) into a six time period. I get that he was angered over what he saw as 2008 politics, but this is op-ed is clearly designed to undermine the President with the South Sudanese.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
