US special envoy to Sudan may soon depart: report

August 13, 2010 (KHARTOUM) — The United States special envoy to Sudan Scott Gration could be moved from his current position to serve as the U.S. Ambassador in Kenya, according to administration officials in a news report.

On Friday, the U.S. magazine Foreign Policy quoted multiple sources as saying that Gration “is considering taking the job of U.S. Ambassador in Nairobi.”

However, the sources said that Gration is lobbying to keep his Sudan portfolio even as ambassador to Kenya which the magazine said will likely become an uphill battle doomed to fail.

One administration source said that the plan had been to nominate Gration during the congressional recess, as to avoid a lengthy confirmation debate, but that plan was no longer operative and Gration would be nominated and confirmed through the usual process. Gration’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Gration, a retired Air Force General, was appointed to his current position by Obama in March 2009. The decorated fighter pilot, was raised in Africa and is fluent in Swahili. He is a close Obama adviser and often travelled with him during the presidential campaign.

They got to know each other when Obama visited Africa in 2006 while still a senator. During that trip they visited Darfur refugees in Chad.

But Gration came under fire from Sudan advocacy groups over the past year after making remarks minimizing the conflict in Darfur to “remnants of genocide” and calling for relaxing sanctions on the East African country.

The U.S. special envoy also criticized Sudan being on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism saying there was “no evidence” to support that designation saying that Khartoum helped US efforts against key member of Al-Qaeda extremist group.

Washington unveiled a new Sudan policy last year which offers incentives in return for concessions on the part of Khartoum but also threatens sanctions should situation worsens with regards to violence in Darfur and the semi-autonomous south.

“Assessment of progress and decisions regarding incentives and disincentives will be based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners,” Secretary Clinton said when announcing the policy.

Foreign Policy magazine said that news of Gration’s removal came in the wake of a meeting at the White House last week, in which the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice objected to the envoy’s proposed plan on Sudan.

Sources privy to the meeting said that Rice was “furious” when Gration proposed a plan that prioritizes the South Sudan referendum on independence, deemphasizes the ongoing crisis in Darfur, and is devoid of any additional pressures on the government in Khartoum. The sources also said that Gration’s plan was endorsed by almost all the other participants, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Analysts have long pointed to a schism between two currents within the US administration over Sudan policy. On one hand, Susan Rice advocates a tougher approach towards Sudan. Gration on the other hand, leads a faction in favour of engagement with the Sudanese government led by the National Congress Party (NCP) of President Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide in the western region of Darfur.

The genesis of discord between the two dates back to the early days of the administration when Rice was infuriated over Gration’s labelling of the situation in Darfur.

Administration officials played down the conflict between Rice and Gration, saying that such meetings are supposed to be deliberative. “This is a policy debate. People often disagree. If they didn’t, what’s the point of having the meeting?” one White House official said.

Gration’s approach has been welcomed and acknowledged by senior Sudanese officials. Speaking about the US policy on Sudan under Gration, President Al-Bashir was quoted on as saying:

“The US position is ambivalent. Gration is able to see the facts in Sudan and he has begun to influence leading people within the administration. Even [US Vice-President] Biden has begun to review his position and [even President Barak] Obama.”

Bashir added that, “the trouble with the US administration is the pressure groups which have vested interests and we are going to suffer from this for a long period of time.”

A number of Darfur rebel groups shared a negative view of the U.S. special envoy.

“Instead of playing a positive role in the resolution of Darfur conflict in order to stop the ongoing violence against Darfur people, the special envoy of President Obama to Sudan abandoned his mission and has become a problem and an obstacle due to his non-neutral position,” Abdel Wahid Al-Nur, the leader of Darfur rebel faction Sudan Liberation Movement, told Sudan Tribune on 23 August 2009.

Similarly, the leader of Justice and Equality Movement, Khalil Ibrahim, has excoriated Gration, saying that he “is acting like a foreign minister for Al-Bashir and with that he’s harmed the unjustly treated in Darfur and is only strengthening the government.”

In August 2009, Darfur advocacy groups sent a letter to Gration accusing him ‘failing to acknowledge human rights violations” and holding Khartoum accountable for its “lack of commitment to peace and justice.’

John Prendergast, who leads the Enough Project, was quoted by Foreign Policy as saying, “During the last year and a half, we’ve seen increased violence in Darfur and the deadliest months in five years, we saw an election that was completely compromised without any resulting sanctions, we’ve seen a deepening of the rifts that could cause a resumption of war between the north and the south. None of these have elicited from the Obama administration anything more than an occasional statement. This has given a clear green light to the regime in Khartoum to pursue its warmongering as usual. Gration has overseen this policy.”

(ST)