BLOG

Like reading tea leaves, it is hard for any outsider to really decipher how steadfast President Obama’s administration is about its Sudan policy. The only thing many can agree on is that there has been a flurry of activity lately and that is a good thing because in just three months, on Jan. 9, 2011, there will be a referendum in South Sudan about whether it will remain part of the North or make itself a brand new country. Right now, it looks as if the South is bent on independence and the world needs to be ready.

The numbers are already staggering from past conflicts. First, there was the 22-year civil war (1983-2005) between the North and South, and then a genocide, as the U.S. labeled it in 2004, that literally torched the Darfur region of Sudan. All of this led to two million deaths in Southern Sudan and an estimated 300,000 more in Darfur, plus the displacement of over 4 million people in the country as a whole. Most of the tragedy is still in place. No peace treaty has been signed yet in Darfur, and about two million Southerners who fled to the North are still residing there. The referendum is part of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the North-South war and now it could be the spark that ignites war again.

So, it was important to hear President Obama give one line in his recent United Nations speech to Sudan saying that “we will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan…the peace that the Sudanese people deserve.” It was even better when the president decided to attend the next day’s UN summit on Sudan where he pressed for the referendum to go off on time, peacefully, and reflect the will of South Sudan, according Samantha Power, a special adviser to the president.

But, I hope they are doing much more behind the scenes, working with the UN, the Arab League and China – just to name a few of the interested actors – to try to resolve some of the overriding issues surrounding the referendum, such as, demarcation of borders, oil sharing, citizenship, water rights and the division of national debts. And, if things were to ignite -- the protection of civilians.

And then there is Darfur. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the situation there “dangerous, difficult, not stable.” That’s a bird’s-eye view because ever since Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was condemned last year by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur, Bashir has prevented most humanitarian agencies from having access to that war-torn region of the country. In fact, it is so bad that Kalma camp, home to 50,000 Darfuris who fled their villages because of rape, murder and looting, was completely blockaded to aid groups during part of August. New regulations imposed by Khartoum now allow health organizations just two hours each day to enter the camp and depart.

The administration has a full plate on Sudan. But it has got to stay focused and steadfast. “Never Again” should mean just that.

This article was originally posted online at POLITICO's "The Arena"