• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Sudan: Congress Moves to Block Obama's "Cookies and Gold Stars" Approach

    The Obama Administration has pursued an incentive plan for Sudanese President Omar al Bashir to try and secure his cooperation and support for the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between Sudan and the nascent independent state of Southern Sudan. One of the Obama Administration’s preliminary offers was the removal of Sudan from the state sponsors of terrorism list. Aside from rewarding Bashir (accused by the U.S. of genocide in Darfur) for promises of support that may prove ephemeral and are certainly unenforceable, it would also willfully ignore the possibility that Sudan may still be supporting at least one group—the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)—included on the Terrorist Exclusion List as directed by Section 212(1)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) of the U.S.

    As The Heritage Foundation observed earlier this year: “The label ‘state sponsor of terror’ should not be treated as a political tool. Such a status should be removed only if a country legitimately ends its support to terrorist organizations.” So far there is little evidence that Bashir has renounced his support of the LRA as required by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). According to the International Crisis Group, as early as March 2010 the LRA’s leader, Joseph Kony, “was in the southern Darfur region of Sudan hoping to receive support from his former benefactor, the Khartoum government.” Whether Bashir provided support is uncertain, but Kony’s presence in Sudan indicates that he thought such support would be forthcoming.

    Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are skeptical of the Administration’s offer to remove Sudan from the state sponsors of terrorism list. A press release from Representative Ed Royce (R-CA), co-sponsor of the “Sudan Cessation of Support for the Lord’s Resistance Army Certification Act of 2011” (H.R. 895) along with Jim McGovern (D-MA), argues that Congress should instead require:

    [T]he Obama Administration to certify to Congress that the Sudanese government is ‘no longer engaged in training, harboring, supplying, financing, or supporting in any way the Lord’s Resistance Army, its leader Joseph Kony, or his top commanders’ before Sudan could be removed from the state sponsor of terrorism list.

    Representatives Royce and McGovern have also supported previous bipartisan legislation on ending the LRA’s violence across Africa, including the “Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act,” which was signed into law on May 24, 2010.

    The LRA is still a very real threat to stability in Southern Sudan and Darfur (and to other countries in the region), and Bashir has contributed to its brutal acts. Furthermore, the government in Khartoum has a record of manipulating the negotiation process and inhibiting progress. Before granting concessions to those who support terrorism, the Obama Administration should be absolutely certain that President Bashir and his government are working in good faith to accept Southern Sudan’s independence, peace in Darfur and an end to LRA terror.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Sudan: Congress Moves to Block Obama's "Cookies and Gold Stars" Approach

    1. gary merkel temperan says:

      Anyone with common sense knows that oil prices are rising because of the

      wall street speculators. There is no control on greed in this country. why dont we

      make the big business pay there fair share of taxes.Lets stop all of the off shore

      companies, hiding there assets.

    2. I Adam, Sudan says:

      Ms Roach: you're simply poo-stirring in extremis against the Sudanese government, vis-a-vis the LRA regional insecurity issue; how do you disprove a negative???

      Moreover, the claim you’ve made is very old hat indeed.

      It’s something that’s been ferreted out of the trash bin by ICG and other anti-Sudanese government (overseas, predominantly American) activists like John Prendergast and his new BF ‘Gorgeous’ George Clooney.

      Why do I say that??

      FYI, Ms Roach: here’s what P J Crowley said about those allegations late last year:

      “We have heard the LRA appears to be better armed than it has been in the recent past…but we have no evidence to substantiate those allegations that Sudan is supporting the LRA.”

      Not convinced?? Then forget about P J Crowley, Ms Roach; how about trying Save Darfur??

      Here’s what they said last year about the third-hand recycled claim that Ms Roach is making now:

      “No hard evidence to connect Khartoum”.

      Precisely.

      You can continue to go ahead, Ms Roach, with trying to make a sow’s ear look like a silk purse.

      Don’t envy your task, though.

    3. Mike, Florida says:

      Here's a great idea that is likely never to occur to the current administration. How about we (the United States) simply mind our own business and get the heck out of Sudan all together. No more aid, no more support, no more meddling. Its about time IMO that the U.S. return to the vision of the founders, and not interfere in other countries where we have no appreciable business dealings. Think of the money we could save! Oh, and we've got plenty to work on at home, don't we?

      And gary merkel, get a clue pal. The class warfare nonsense is really getting old. You want a simple solution to ending the rise in gas prices caused by speculators, have our current White House squatter announce that the U.S. will be re-instituing drilling in the Gulf and will be issuing permits in ANWAR, as well as paving the way for the existing nuclear energy permits sitting in Washington to be approved. Watch the price of a barrel of oil plummet on that news! And there is imperical evidence to back up that outcome. Of course, any such decision would be based upon an understanding of markets and business, something this adminstration is painfully lacking in.

    4. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      For me "Bipartisan" has become a dirty word. Pardon me if I am skeptical about Sudan, the settlement with Gaddaffy (however you spell it these days) proves we are 'tools' for using the Terrorist List as a Tool! I wish I knew who I can believe!

      I ask Adam I, tell me does the leopard change its spots? Will a fiat from Obama change murderous hearts? Gee! What? Is it, "Let us American professional agitators into your Country?" Is that it? Why does the Left want Sudan? Haven't they caused enough trouble already?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×