Skip to content

Save Darfur Hits Bottom and Keeps Digging

August 17, 2009

It’s official! The Save Darfur Coalition has reached a new low in what they seem to think is advocacy. To be clear, what they actually do cannot reasonably be considered the work of competent advocates or even sentient beings. It’s plain ol’ stoooopid. (And the worst part?  Some of the staff know it but continue to participate anyway.  BUT DON’T JUDGE THEM!  They’re collecting big paychecks in exchange for little work. Nice work if you can get it.)  Here’s the email SDC activists received last week entitled “Vote on our next major move for Sudan”:

Dear _______,

Vote now to name
our new campaign:

1. Speak up for Sudan
2. Standing for Sudan
3. Don’t forget Darfur
4. Darfur: now more than ever
5. IDP—I Demand Peace

By voting your name will be added to our new petition.

Do world leaders think Darfur is saved?

President Obama still hasn’t released his peace plan. The U.N. Security Council, European Union, Arab League and African Union all keep dragging their feet on getting tough with Bashir.

And yet as violence in Darfur has dropped, violence in South Sudan has sky-rocketed. Just last week, new brutal ethnic violence killed at least 185 in the southern Jonglei State.

In one month, world leaders will come together in New York City to discuss humanity’s most pressing issues: but will they make peace in Sudan a priority?

Your vote now will decide the name of our September campaign to make sure they do just that and remember those forgotten in Sudan.

Through a massive display of images from Darfur, signs placed in your windows, and a global photo petition, we will make it impossible for world leaders to ignore those still teetering on the edge in Sudan.

We’re kicking the campaign off with a new petition to President Obama, but our success depends on your taking direct ownership of this campaign.

That’s why we’re asking you to vote now and decide the name of our September campaign.

This is a crucial moment in our struggle to bring peace to Sudan. Some experts believe the rise in insecurity in South Sudan could reignite the brutal war that killed over 2 million.

September will be our best chance this year to impact so many key world leaders. Our ability to leverage this critical opportunity depends on what you do today.

Please vote by Monday August 17th and add your name to our new petition to President Obama.

I look forward to finding out how you vote and will report back results early next week.

—Mark

Mark Lotwis
Save Darfur Coalition

P.S. If you know someone who cares about the people of Darfur, ask them to join us from the start by signing the petition and voting on the name of the campaign.

Donate to Help Save Darfur
Help build the political pressure needed to end the crisis in Darfur by supporting the Save Darfur Coalition’s crucial awareness and advocacy programs. Click here now to make a secure, tax-deductible online donation.

There’s no need to say it, I know what you’re thinking, accountabilibuddies — “HUH?!?! That email makes no goddamn sense. You either need to be a fool (highly likely) or genius (highly unlikely) to understand such seeming nonsense. I need help!”  It’s okay, I’m scared too.  So let’s try and sift through the email together.  Give me your hand and let’s begin with the subject line…

“Vote on our next major move for Sudan”

YAY! We get to play a meaningful role in deciding the way the Save Darfur Coalition will move forward. Sweet. Now for the email itself…hold on tight, we’re in for a wild ride…

Dear _______,

Hey, that’s me (or you as the case may be)! At least these knuckleheads got our names right.

Do world leaders think Darfur is saved?

How do I know what the hell “world leaders” think? I’m not even sure who the “world leaders” in question are.  As for “saved”…that seems a bit “simple”…if you get my drift. All of us know that Sudan will only be saved by the Sudanese. More appropriately, they will reach a political compromise that stabilizes the country. Do you think the Sudanese, upon hearing a political agreement has been reached, will celebrate “saving” themselves? Doubtful.

President Obama still hasn’t released his peace plan. The U.N. Security Council, European Union, Arab League and African Union all keep dragging their feet on getting tough with Bashir.

Umm. Okay…I guess. The Obama administration hasn’t made a “peace plan” available to the general public (or more importantly to Jerry Fowler or John Prendergast), but the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan does seem to be receiving sound reviews from many smart and committed advocates, from activists to academics to elected officials. I know, I know, the whacktivists are baying for Gration’s blood, but we know better than to let the lunatics run the asylum, don’t we? “Dragging their feet on getting tough with Bashir”? If you say so, but this seems more like overly propagandistic/militaristic rhetoric rather than thoughtful communication. Hyperbole is fun and easy!

And yet as violence in Darfur has dropped, violence in South Sudan has sky-rocketed. Just last week, new brutal ethnic violence killed at least 185 in the southern Jonglei State.

Violence in Darfur has dropped?! Then why does every other Save Darfur communication suggest otherwise? It’s hard to keep up with these schizophrenic paranoids…one day there’s a genocide…and the next it’s a semantic debate…one day there’s 400,000 dead…and now there’s…well…who knows what they’re saying this week. Anyone else get the sense Save Darfur will soon become Save Sudan?

In one month, world leaders will come together in New York City to discuss humanity’s most pressing issues: but will they make peace in Sudan a priority?

Again with the nameless “world leaders?”  “Humanity’s most pressing issues?”  Sounds important. So important, in fact, they didn’t even mention that what they’re referring to is the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting. Hey, if some SDC staff members don’t know where in the world the Hague is (yep, really), why would we expect them to actually know what “UNGA” (when pronounced by professional advocates it rhymes with “bunga”) is? As an American advocate for peace in Sudan, I certainly hope that U.S. representatives lead international attempts to support efforts for peace in Darfur/Sudan.  However, I know this is ultimately a Sudanese problem and only a Sudanese political solution can bring lasting peace to the people of that country. America cannot impose peace. (For examples, see Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Your vote now will decide the name of our September campaign to make sure they do just that and remember those forgotten in Sudan.

DO I LOOK STUPID TO YOU, MARK LOTWIS?! Your subject line was “Vote on our next major move for Sudan” and now I find out you just want me to vote on a campaign name?! Used car salesmen have got nuthin’ on you. Seriously. How in the name of all that is good and holy will my choosing one of five pre-determined names for a still yet-to-be-defined campaign “make sure” that “world leaders” will “make sure Sudan is a priority” and “remember those forgotten in Sudan”? Do you have chimps bangin’ on keyboards over there? I hope this isn’t the work of a human being, but I fear the worst.

Through a massive display of images from Darfur, signs placed in your windows, and a global photo petition, we will make it impossible for world leaders to ignore those still teetering on the edge in Sudan.

A HA! The goal of the “campaign” is to “make it impossible for world leaders to ignore those still teetering on the edge in Sudan,” and this will be accomplished through a “massive display of images from Darfur, signs placed in your windows, and a global photo petition.” Preposterous. Utter nonsense. It’s not a campaign. It’s a collection of useless awareness-raising tactics without a specifically-defined goal.  (FYI: Activists do little or nothing during the month of August. Smart money is on less then 10 percent of recipients even opened this email.) Save Darfur just failed Advocacy 101.

We’re kicking the campaign off with a new petition to President Obama, but our success depends on your taking direct ownership of this campaign.

Great. Yet another petition. Direct ownership? You’ve gotta be kidding me! Picking a poorly conceived name for an even more poorly conceived “campaign” is not direct ownership.  This is especially insulting to advocates because it shows that SDC doesn’t really trust them with making meaningful campaign decisions at all.  Rather, it’s patronizing, kinda like when a family gets a new pet and the parents decide what type of pet it will be, what breed, etc. but let their kids pick the name.  “Sure, Emily.  Your totally original and not-at-all-trite decision to name our new dalmatian Pongo was a huge contribution to the decision-making process.  You know you’re the reason Daddy drinks, right?”  

That’s why we’re asking you to vote now and decide the name of our September campaign.

Again with the voting?

This is a crucial moment in our struggle to bring peace to Sudan. Some experts believe the rise in insecurity in South Sudan could reignite the brutal war that killed over 2 million.

When was the last time SDC sent you an email that didn’t reference a crucial/critical moment and impending doom? Answer: As often as you receive an SDC email that doesn’t ask for your money — VERY RARELY.  And when every moment is critical, none are.

September will be our best chance this year to impact so many key world leaders. Our ability to leverage this critical opportunity depends on what you do today.

And when was the last time Mark Lotwis sent you an email that didn’t reference a “best/last chance”?

Please vote by Monday August 17th and add your name to our new petition to President Obama.

Aaahhh. NOW I GET IT! Save Darfur doesn’t want my “direct ownership,” they want my signature on their 1, 203,454th petition. Interesting. SDC is now requiring that activists pay a poll tax in the form of a petition signature. Very democratic. Why not allow dedicated long-time activists an opportunity to vote for the campaign name, but not sign the petition?  Come to think of it…why aren’t voting results more transparent? (My money is on DON’T FORGET DARFUR being the final choice, even though the “campaign” is aimed at making Sudan a priority. It’s just too incongruous to pass up.) It seems that SDC is much better at demanding democratic processes in Sudan than actually employing such processes themselves.

I look forward to finding out how you vote and will report back results early next week.

We will be waiting with bated breath, Mr. Lotwis. Any chance you’ll tell us how many votes were tallied for each proposed campaign name? I won’t hold my breath.

More on the proposed campaign names later. IDP: I DEMAND PEACE?!  Wow.  That’s one part wit and 100 parts ridiculous.


MUST READ: The Save Darfur coalition’s vital statistics

August 13, 2009

First off, is no one gonna call me out for the obvious hypocrisy of my last post?  You disappoint me once again, blogosphere.  Oh well, moving right along…

Conor Foley critiques the Save Darfur Coalition in an excellent post over at Crooked Timbers.  Let’s see, “money quote” is my co-blogger’s line, so I’ll call this an “excerpt of interest:”

By massively inflating the real death toll and offering what seems to be the most ‘common sense’ solution – send in western troops – it has put all the other humanitarian agencies and human rights groups at a massive disadvantage when it came to fundraising and ensured that it is its own message that has dominated the debate.  It is accountable to no one, it helps no one and it has created a self-perpetuating circle, which in any other industry could get its organisers prosecuted for fraud.

It’s worth a read, and he’s a great example of someone who has clearly seen the tip of the iceberg of Save Darfur Coalition intrigue, but has no clue about the vast chunk of Titanic-sinkin’ ice that lies underwater.  I ain’t hatin’ though, we can’t all be obnoxious insiders.  Speaking of which, he’s written a great book called The Thin Blue Line that everyone in the anti-genocide movement should read post-haste.

MUST READ: “This I Believe”

August 12, 2009

On August 10, 2009, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration released the following statement:

“This I Believe”

Scott Gration
Special Envoy to Sudan
Washington, DC
August 10, 2009

In the 1950s, journalist Edward R. Murrow hosted a radio show titled “This I Believe” that invited Americans to record essays that shared their core beliefs with listeners across the country. The essayists, ranging from heads of state to cab drivers, used the opportunity to tackle difficult topics and to offer “the guiding principles by which they lived.”

As the President’s Special Envoy to Sudan, I have been charged with the awesome responsibility of working to improve the political, humanitarian, and economic challenges confronting the people of Sudan. For the past six months, I have been working incredibly hard and logging a lot of miles to understand this dire and desperate situation better and to chart a course for moving forward. I understand that for the community of people who care deeply about this issue time is of the essence and much is at stake. I want to give you the clearest sense of where I am coming from and what my core beliefs are on the best approach to untangle the complex, varied, and nuanced set of issues facing Sudan.

I learned to walk and talk in Africa; my first words were in Swahili not English. A passion for Africa and African people runs through my veins. I also know firsthand the personal toll of war and what it means to be displaced. Growing up, my family was evacuated three times from our home in the Congo, and we became refugees. I embrace those experiences and they inform my current efforts.

I believe that the road to peace in Sudan runs through Darfur. The atrocities that have taken place in Darfur are a crime against the world that must be resolved. We are working aggressively to reverse the ongoing consequences of genocide in Darfur. Though the incidence of violent deaths has improved dramatically since 2005, the situation remains dangerous and dire. Civilians remain vulnerable, living conditions are unacceptable, and the displaced remain unable to return home in security.

For those who are concerned that we are seeking the untimely return of IDPs, I assure you that that is not the case. I share the same concerns about the idea of having the more than 2.5 million people living in IDP camps attempt returns in an insecure and uncoordinated fashion. We will never abandon or seek to endanger IDPs. Our task for now is to begin the work to create conditions that are conducive for their eventual safe return, including access to food and safe water, addressing land rights, protection of human rights, and freedom from gender-based violence. We are working closely with the African Union/United Nations joint chief mediator, Djibril Bassolé to unify the disparate rebel groups in Darfur so that they can speak with one voice to participate in the peace process. I also believe that IDPs must have a clear voice as their perspectives and solutions become part of this process.

As important as it is to address the issue of Darfur, I believe that we equally dedicate all available resources to achieving full implementation of the CPA. In the next two years, Sudan will face both national elections and two referenda. An unsuccessful and marred election could contribute to significant unrest and instability in a state bordering nine other countries and even incite renewed conflict. In the last few months, we have initiated trilateral talks with the parties to the CPA and have developed an implementation strategy. These talks are ongoing and we are holding all parties accountable for their commitments. We are determined to create the conditions for a peaceful process and post-referendum period whether the result is a single, stable, and unified Sudan or a Sudan that divides into two separate states.

Our work on implementing the CPA is complemented by our efforts to address the pressing needs of Southern Sudan. The South needs urgent attention and assistance in building its infrastructure and promoting development before the referendum in 2011. While the current US sanctions against the government in Khartoum explicitly exclude Southern Sudan, in practical terms they do not.

Large equipment needed for infrastructure or economic development in the South must go through Port Sudan and/or Khartoum in the North, which makes these necessary investments for the South subject to our sanctions. “Smart,” targeted sanctions are absolutely necessary and desirable against key components of the government in Khartoum. I want to be clear. These sanctions should not be lifted.

However, I believe that we must consider specific exceptions or selective rollbacks to facilitate development in the South and fully implement the CPA. We need more flexibility to achieve our desired results, which are: pressuring the North, developing the South, and incentivizing good behavior on all sides.

I believe that we cannot hope to achieve these results and a lasting peace if we only engage with those we already agree with. We must work to mediate and work with all stakeholders—Khartoum, Juba, rebel groups, Chad, civil society, and the international community. It is important to recognize the stated position of the US government on President Al-Bashir. We hold him responsible for the actions of his government and recognize that the justice process is moving forward. I have not met and have no plans to meet with President Al-Bashir.

As we continue moving forward, I will need the support and engagement of the entire community that is dedicated to addressing the challenges facing Sudan. We all have to work together and to be on the same team. Let us continue to exchange our best ideas in support of our important mission.

Thank you for your continued interest and dedication, Scott.

Well played, General…well played. Now we’ll just have to wait and see if the pro-stick-anti-carrot-nattering-neocon-nabobs are willing “to work together” and be on the “same team” with Gen. Gration and the Obama administration to address the current challenges facing Darfur/Sudan. Doubtful, since there’s no S, D, or C in T-E-A-M…and no N, O, U, G, or H either.

What I Did on My Summer Vacation: A Love Story

August 10, 2009

So I’ve been back home for the past week visiting my parents (It was not a social visit, mind you.  See, a new family moved into my old neighborhood and, technically, I still have to introduce myself to them even though I no longer live in the area.  Damn Megan’s Law is a mutha, y’all!) and I’ve learned a few important things:

1.  My step-father’s insulin tastes nothing like Sprite (a friend owes me $50 for that one).

2.  Cats make horrible babysitters.

3.  When Mrs. Chote, my parents’ new neighbor, says that she can bedazzle anything, never ever ask her to prove it.

4.  Taxidermists have fantastically filthy senses of humor.

Yes, even - no, especially when its sexy.

Ya see?!

5.  The DC non-profit community may be more incestuous than European royal families and West Virginia combined.  See, my vacation was interrupted when someone called to alert me to a recent post on Stop Genocide in which Michelle F. defends SDC.  A very small amount of sleuthing (i.e. sleuthing that did not require me to be sober or to move from the backyard hammock) led me to some interesting findings.  See below the email I sent to Change.org after sobering up:*

Dear Change.org (or Dr. Change.org Esq., whichever you prefer),

I’ve been very distressed by the content of Stop Genocide, one of the blogs on your site, as of late.  Cereally, I’ve been crying myself to sleep for the past week. Every night, I curl up in a fetal position, hug my Tenderheart Care Bear and scream “Why don’t they love me?!” to the heavens above. I once did this so loudly that the neighbors called the police (again).

My distress began after I favorably mentioned Change.org in a blog post of mine a while back – Indeed, “Thanks, Change.org” was the title of the post! – and thanked bloggers Michelle F. and Martha Heinemann Bixby of Stop Genocide for their excellent work. In return, I got no mention on their blog. Not even a Daily Darfur Quickie!  That really hurt, as I’m always up for a quickie.

I had such high hopes for how our relationship would unfold too. See, Michelle F. wrote a post about Al Wynn, a former congressman who intends to lobby for Wartsila, a company whose “business transactions…have helped the Sudanese government.” In her post, Michelle chastises Wynn, saying “I would say, ‘Shame on you, Mr. Wynn,’ but somehow I doubt he’s familiar with the concept.” Well, I found out that the lobbying firm Wynn works for is Dickstein Shapiro, which provides pro bono legal counsel for the Save Darfur Coalition, according to their website. I wrote about it, thanking Change.org for alerting me to this story. I thought that, since Michelle seems like a woman of such strong moral fiber, that she would flag my post and say something like “If this is true, then hopefully, if they aren’t already planning to do so, SDC will take steps to get new legal counsel. If not, perhaps they are the ones who are unfamiliar with the concept of shame.” See how that would have tied in with her previous post?  God, such a missed opportunity!

So they ignored me.  Fine.  I can handle that.  I’ll just do what I always do when my love goes unrequited: Cut myself and murder hookers.  Perfectly normal, perfectly healthy.  But then, presumably not having sufficiently ripped my heart out, Stop Genocide decided to take a more active approach.  In an August 3rd post titled Give Me A Break: The True Story of the Save Darfur Thong, Michelle calls out “irresponsible” bloggers who chastised SDC for accepting money from the sale of thongs with the words “Stop Genocide” on them (or “Thonggate” as it’s now known around these parts). She doesn’t mention SDAP, but we’re obviously included in the group she’s critiquing because we wrote about the thongs back in April, before they became a “sensation in the blogosphere.” She explains how her “moles within Save Darfur” – moles suggests subterfuge, so maybe “handlers” would be a more appropriate word choice, but more on that in a minute – informed her that SDC tried to get these people to stop by issuing a cease and desist order and “as far as SDC knows, they have not received funds from the sale of the thong” and ends with asking that bloggers – like me, I suppose – “take [their] potshots elsewhere.”  Why you gotta bust balls, babydoll?

Obviously, I was devastated. After wiping my tears though, I got to thinkin’ ‘bout this a little more. The obvious questions to me were “‘As far as they know?!’ Why would SDC have to guess that they didn’t receive money from these people unless their development recordkeeping is even more woeful than I previously imagined?” and “How could they have issued a cease and desist order ‘some years back’ when their logo just got copyrighted not long ago?  You can’t send a C&D for a logo you don’t own!”  It smacks of bad intelligence – or lack of intelligence – to me.  More importantly, why didn’t SDC defend themselves personally?  Why is Michelle doing it for them? Why would Stop Genocide gladly attack Wynn for the Wartsila thing, but give SDC a free pass? Why give SDC another pass by saying that the thongs are a “scam?” Why the selective reporting? Why does Stop Genocide consistently either defend SDC or at least under-report its crimes and misdemeanors?

And that’s where you come in, Change.org.  See, while trying to find answers to the questions above, I came across some information that I’d like you to confirm or deny.  It would give me closure and help the healing process begin, you see.  Specifically, according to our “moles” (we actually call them “sources” because we aren’t trying to pretend like we’re CIA agents, but whatever) within SDC, contributors to the Stop Genocide blog are actually very much connected to and invested in SDC.  Michelle, for example, apparently works at Wellspring Advisors, a major donor to SDC.  If this is true, I’m sure she has already told you in the interest of full disclosure (again, due to her strong moral fiber…that’s what the “F.” in Michelle F. stands for).  I’m sure she’s also told you that Mike Edington, a Senior Philanthropic Adviser at Wellspring, is the Treasurer of SDC’s board.  Likewise, Martha Heinemann Bixby, who blogs less frequently on Stop Genocide, is currently a full time staff member at SDC. Finally, Mohamed Suleiman, who just started writing for Stop Genocide, works closely with SDC and was even one of SDC’s Darfur Heroes last October.

Should all this be true, it raises all kinds of questions, of course.  Could these allegiances be the reason Michelle was unwilling to write something bad about SDC? Should Michelle’s posts that defend SDC be thought of as the voice of Michelle, Change.org or Wellspring Advisors? In that same vein, should Martha’s posts be viewed as those of an individual or simply an extension of SDC policy? There’s no way of knowing for certain, obviously, but I just want your help in shedding some light on the relationship between your bloggers and the organizations they write about. When I’m reading Stop Genocide, am I reading something that’s been authored by an impartial observer or do the authors of that blog have the same connections to the movement that the authors of SDAP do?  If the latter is true, I think you understand what kind of closure that would give me.  I would then understand perfectly well why Stop Genocide’s authors don’t love me and never will: If I funded, worked at or worked with SDC, I’d try to ignore my blog too.

The problem is that, on her Change.org profile, Michelle doesn’t list her current employer (even Martha’s profile lists SDC as a place she has worked, implying past tense).  So I’m asking – no, begging! – you to clarify Stop Genocide’s relationship (or lack thereof) with SDC for me.  Does Michelle really work for Wellspring?  Martha still works at SDC, right?  Note that, to keep others from suffering the same heartbreak I did, I’ll publish your response on my blog, the Save Darfur Accountability Project, upon receiving it.  Thank you for helping me get through this.  I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Deontologist

*Confession: I wasn’t really sober when I wrote that.  Not even close.

Droning On

August 6, 2009

Michelle F. (the “F.” is for faceless) over at STOP GENOCIDE touts the latest greatest Eric Reeves op-ed. The post isn’t worth reading in its entirety, but here’s the money quote:

Personally, I’m beginning to wonder if someone placed a chip in Gration’s head during his last trip to Khartoum, turning him into a drone for the government of Sudan.

You gotta admire the guts cajones of Save Darfur movement hacks (professional advocates and their major funders alike) that have failed miserably (REPEATEDLY over the past 5 years) at “saving Darfur” to take potshots at Gen. Gration.

Taking advice from Michelle. F, Jerry F., Sam B., and John P. on how to bring peace to Darfur is like taking advice from the German army on how to win a World War. (“Invade Russia in ze winter? Vy not? Let’s do it! I hear Stalingrad iz beautiful zis time of year.”) Bad, bad idea. Here’s some unsolicited advice to the nattering (neocon?) nabobs of negativity: Crawl into the backseat where you belong, lil’ children…the adults are back in the driver’s seat. Hey, if Gration lives up to your hopes expectations, you’ll have plenty of opportunities to say, “I told you so.” Then you can strut back to your over-paid, 9:30-to-5ish, holier-than-thou jobs…there will always be some people for you to “save”.

MUST READ: U.S. reshaping Darfur policy

August 4, 2009

Peter Wallsten and Edmund Sanders have a great piece in today’s Los Angeles Times on the Obama administration’s new approach to Darfur/Sudan. The article includes this very interesting tidbit:

Potential conciliation is particularly sensitive because of the war crime charges against Bashir. Some advocacy groups are planning for a marketing blitz designed to convince the White House to maintain pressure on Sudan in light of Gration’s push to engage Khartoum.

The media effort will include YouTube videos and viral ads highlighting campaign promises from Obama and his team pledging tough action to save Darfur.

“We fear [Gration is] being too concessionary,” said Randy Newcomb, president of Humanity United, a foundation that gets its money from the founders of EBay and is bankrolling the publicity campaign.

“These are people in the administration we’ve been friendly with, but we’ve got to keep the pressure on them to make sure they are very aggressive,” Newcomb said.

Now we have the funders out front leading the charge instead of the all-important advocacy orgs? Is Humanity United falling out of love with ENOUGH and the Save Darfur Coalition? And what the hell does “very aggressive” mean? We here at SDAP will be keeping a keen eye on the upcoming media campaign, so stay tuned.

MUST READ: The “Seven Deadly Sins” of a Peacemaker

July 31, 2009

Money Quote from Alex de Waal’s recent Making Sense of Darfur blog post:

Peacemaking is an art—but increasingly we can apply sound measurements to rate a mediator’s efforts. In the run-up to the long-awaited announcement of the U.S. policy on Sudan, I will use a paper by Lakhdar Brahimi and Salman Ahmed, “In Pursuit of Sustainable Peace: The Seven Deadly Sins of Mediation,” to outline some of the measurements we may use to assess the new U.S. policy. My premise is that the U.S. is interested in peace, and that the warring parties are Sudanese, so that the U.S. role is either as mediator or in support of mediation. If the U.S. intends imposing its own political framework on Sudan, then that would call for a different set of measurements.