Sept. 7, 2010, 10:47 a.m.
The Woodrow Wilson Center has published a working paper debating the optimal policy options for the United States government in Sudan. Sudan faces numerous hurdles in the upcoming months. A crucial referenudm is less than half a year away, yet the demarcation of the potential North-South border has still not taken place. This, combined with the ICC warrant for President Bashir's arrest, and continued tension in the south and west of the country, has created an uncertain atmosphere. The intent of this paper is to present two different views on how the United States and international community can avoid the worst possible outcomes during the coming months.
The two papers published here reflect the views of their authors only, but we believe that they will make a useful contribution to the policy debate, not least because they are written from very different perspectives. Prendergast and Jones argue that past US Sudan policy of pressure on Khartoum has been successful and plead for more leverage and more effective use of leverage, especially on the NCP, which they judge keen to repair its relations with the US. Satti, on the other hand, writing during a visit to Sudan, contends that past US policy has served only to reduce Sudanese faith in US promises and US influence in Khartoum. Basing himself on a shrewd analysis of the NCP and its objectives, he suggests a policy of constructive engagement.