In an interesting and poignant article Simon Tisdall points to the colloquialism used to describe the revised US strategy regarding the Sudan - "hugs not slugs". The softened approach towards Khartoum is somewhat controversial-especially in reference to Obama's strong rhetoric during the 2008 election campaign and during the transition period. But it should come as no surprise. Obama has engaged with the virtues of so-called 'soft power' in all manner of US diplomacy since January 2009, from Iran and Russia through climate change and economic reform. Without wanting to engage in a debate on the advantages/disadvantages of implementing soft power, Tisdall powerfully argues that it is clear a softened approach is absolutely necessary in order to preventing "geostrategic and human calamity".^[1]

1. ^ http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/sudan-obama-policy

Whilst hyperbole can be distracting, it seems like no exaggeration to suggest that the bubbling tension in southern Sudan might result in another catastrophic genocide on a similar scale to that which occurrd in Darfur during previous years. "The UN estimates that of 2.7 million internally displaced persons, over 1 million will have no access to food, clean water, and primary medical care [in the near future]...", writes expert analyst Eric Reeves, "conditions have already deteriorated badly in some camps for displaced Darfuri civilians, particularly water and sanitation, and the hunger gap and rainy season loom ever closer."^[1] The increasingly precarious situation requires the softened approach of the US administration in order to allow aid agencies to re-enter the country and prevent another humanitarian disaster.

1. ^ http://www.sudanreeves.org/Article241.html

With the adoption of a suppossedly 'softer' approach with the leadership in Khartoum, Washington can expect to gain a number of advantages in practical issues facing Sudan. Firstly, talks planned for later this year in Qatar will be far more amiable to producing solutions if the US improves it's standing among the interested parties, including the EU, UN and AU. Secondly, and closely related to the first, the CPA signed to end the devastating civil war will be bolstered and, hopefully, enhanced with the direct positive engagement of the US. And thirdly, the planned interim elections for Sudan will require sustained international support, a process that can only be achieved will the full backing of the Obama Administration, as one of al-Bashir's senior advisors, Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani, has stipulated, "We invite the international community to support financially and materially the conduct of elections in deeds and in words."^[1]

1. ^ http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/sudan-obama-policy

There are two actors intricately related to Sudan whose influence is seen, especially in the West, as pervasive and destructive. The first is China. From arms trading (both legal and illegal), drugs smuggling, energy deals, and political support, China has been accused of many potentionally criminal activities in Sudan. Though, of course, this is not the entire picture, it is clear that the activities of the PRC threaten to undermine the peace process. By engaging with the leadership, the US will hope to loosen the influence of Beijing over Khartoum, enhancing the potential for international cooperation over Sudan. The second, and certainly more dangerous, comes from those within the rather broad Islamist 'extremist' grouping. The complex nature of the tribal social-political system renders any analysis of the Islamist influence extremely difficult. However, if the US can persuade the leadership in Khartoum of their peaceful intentions, a large part of the Islamist rhetoric will diminish-paving the way for a peace process absent of sectarian rivalry. As Simon Tisdall has rightly argued, "combating the regional spread of hardline Islamist ideology and challenging China's growing influence...makes sense to the White House."^[1]

1. ^ http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/sudan-obama-policy