By Andrew Quinn
WASHINGTON, Oct 19 (Reuters) - The United States on Monday announced a new policy toward Sudan, maintaining economic sanctions but offering deeper engagement with Khartoum in a bid to end violence in Darfur and the semi-autonomous south.
Officials said the U.S. approach would balance incentives and pressures on Sudan -- a growing African oil producer -- in hopes of achieving political stability ahead of national elections next year and a 2011 referendum on secession in the south.
Q: WHAT IS DRIVING U.S. POLICY?
A: The Obama administration has accused Sudan's government of "genocide" in Darfur and Obama himself called for a tougher stance on Khartoum during the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
While violence continues to crackle, overall conflict levels have fallen since 2003 and 2004. But a fragile 2005 peace agreement with rebels in southern Sudan is under strain as the country prepares for national elections next year and a referendum on southern secession in 2011.
Analysts say the threat of a return to open warfare in the south requires stronger U.S. diplomatic pressure directly on all players, including Khartoum. "It would make Darfur look like a Sunday picnic in terms of mortality rates," said John Prendergast of the Enough Project, a nonprofit group that seeks to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.
Q: WHAT DO SANCTIONS DO?
A: Obama said he would renew existing sanctions against Sudan, which he again accused of committing genocide in Darfur. The U.S. sanctions were first imposed by former President Bill Clinton in 1997 and expanded by former President George W. Bush in 2006.
The sanctions freeze all U.S. property and interests of the government of Sudan, as well as of specific persons deemed directly responsible for the violence in Darfur.
U.S. companies are barred from working with Sudan's oil industry, which now sends most of its exports to China, and most financial dealings with Sudan are also banned.
Washington has also put Sudan on its list of "state sponsors of terrorism," which carries additional sanctions.
These ban U.S. exports of arms-related products, control U.S. exports of "dual-use" items that have both military and civilian applications, prohibit non-humanitarian U.S. aid and require Washington to vote against loans to the country by the World Bank and other international financial institutions.
Q: WHAT DOES THE UNITED STATES WANT?
A: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. policy had three overall objectives: to end violence in Darfur, ensure full implementation of a 2005 peace agreement between the north and the south, and prevent Sudan from serving as a haven for international terror groups.
U.S. officials said Washington will look for movement on a number of fronts, including a deal on census figures that will set constituencies for next year's elections and final demarcation of the border between the north and the south.
In Darfur, U.S. officials will seek verifiable evidence that war crimes and other violence have ended as well as steps toward ending a political crisis which the United Nations said has driven more than 2 million people from their homes and claimed 300,000 lives since 2003.
Q: WHAT CAN THE UNITED STATES DO?
A: Clinton said the United States would balance incentives and pressures to spur cooperation from Khartoum but she would not outline specific steps, saying they were classified.
Nevertheless analysts say the United States has a number of options. The chief incentive on offer, many agree, would be a move by Washington to remove Sudan from the "state sponsors of terrorism" list -- which would be a major step toward international rehabilitation for Khartoum.
"That would be a huge step and you would have to think that Khartoum would be basically doing somersaults to get it accomplished," said Bronwyn Bruton, an Africa specialist at the Council on Foreign Relation.
Other piecemeal steps could include either adding or dropping Sudanese officials from the list of individuals targeted with sanctions, and promoting or blocking efforts to extend debt relief to the country.
Q:WHY IS SUDAN IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES?
A: Sudan, often depicted as a moral challenge to Western policymakers, is also an oil producer which is currently off-limits to U.S. companies.
In 2008, Sudan produced approximately 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude, mostly from the landlocked south. It exported almost 400,000 bdp to Asian markets, more than half of it to China, which is a major player in Sudan's oil sector.
More broadly, Sudan represents a test of the Obama administration's desire to promote change through engagement while upholding human rights standards.
Obama's special envoy for Sudan, retired Air Force General Scott Gration, had been widely seen by analysts as promoting more contacts with Khartoum while U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was seen advocating a harder line.
Political analysts said on Monday the new policy achieved a balance between the two views -- although all agreed that success would depend on how Sudan responds.
"The ball is in Khartoum's court, and that's a good place for it to be," said Bruton of the Council on Foreign Relations. "It is up to Khartoum to show it is willing to change." (Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Eric Walsh)
