1. A) The primary interest in Darfur is stopping the human rights violations and securing the region so humanitarian aid can reach the camps that need them without the threat of violence.
    - “this Darfur situation does cast this huge shadow, and that's why we said in the Sudan Peace Act that we would not -- you know, we've always told the Government of Sudan, if there's a peace agreement we will normalize relations with you. Now we'vesaid, well, if there's a peace agreement we will not normalize relations with you until the Darfur thing is addressed.”# 
                -USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios
- Since the Bush Administration labeled the acts in Darfur as a genocide, they have been inclined to do something about it. They have labeled stopping human rights violations through diplomatic means as their primary interest.
    - “The brutal treatment of innocent civilians in Darfur is unacceptable — it is     unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to Americans, it’s unacceptable to the United     Nations. This status quo must not continue.” #
                – President George W. Bush
- One interest that will never fail is the interest of American national security, which is on par with the interest of humanitarian relief. Sudan has long been partners with international terrorist organizations and despite their display of some support for anti-terrorism, they have still shown support to such terrorist organizations as the Hamad and Palestinian.
    -“Protecting the American people from any and all threats that may emanate from     Africa must be a primary policy focus. The events of September 11 and Africa's own sad     experience with the terrorist attacks against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania     necessitate that counter-terrorism concerns remain front and center as an issue in our     diplomatic relations with the Government of Sudan.” #
        -Walter H. Kansteiner, III, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs

B) The killings in Darfur are not only a humanitarian issue that troubles America, but it is also an issue that over shadows the peace process between the north and south. This environment allows for relations with international terrorist organizations persist and hinders our efforts on the war on terrorism.

2) Although America’s interest for national security has usually been its main focus, the urgency of ending the genocide and the urgency for bringing aid before the rainy and disease filled season has brought the issue of humanitarian relief front and center. The conflict must end so the Sudan Peace Act can proceed. The act will help stabilize the region so we can begin to normalize our relation with the Sudanese government.  Building our relationship with the Sudanese government is essential to gaining influence in anti-terrorist efforts. Sudan has had past relations with terrorist organizations, even harboring Osama Bin Ladin at one point.# Their relations with such terrorist organizations still exist, although not as extensively as before, and we have a vested interest in gaining stabilization in Sudan for that reason. Africa itself is in its own mess, and if trouble in Sudan were to heat up to the point of succession and all out war between the north and the south, we could see chaos overcome Africa. Many neighboring countries, like Chad, Libya, Egypt, are involved in the conflict either through mediation or direct aid with refugees and supplying arms to rebel groups. Stabilization of the Sudan is essential to the stabilization whole international region surrounding Sudan, which is the reason for our pressure to bring the Darfur genocide into the face of the actors of the UN. A chaotic region is hard to have relations with, and stabilization and communication in Sudan and the African region are key in perusing our interests of national security. It is also important for the US to act upon such atrocities in the international scene because “unchecked violence in the face of an obvious capacity to react erodes the rule of law and our international leadership.”# At the present moment the US is the leader of this world and so needs to react to such events with urgency to sustain their standing.

3)      Historically, the united states created diplomatic relations with Sudan after the end of WWII when Sudan gained its independence on January 1st, 1956. The US broke relations with Sudan in 1967 due to the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War, but improved during the cold war, when the Sudanese Communist Party attempted to overthrow the reigning president. After 1972, relations were improving again until a Palestinian terrorist group called “Black September” murdered US ambassador in Khartoum. Relations were weak until president Nimeiri mediated the release of ten American hostages being held in Ethiopia. By 1976, the US resumed economic assistance.# 
    In 1985-1986 Sudan was receiving the largest development and military assistance from the US than any other African state. During this time relations were strained due to a presence of Libyan terrorist groups. Relations deteriorated when a US Embassy employ was shot. Assistance was suspended when a military coup overthrew the government and placed the National Islamist Front led by General Bashir in power in 1989. US relations were further hampered when they proceeded to provide sanctuary to Islamic terrorist groups in the 1990’s. In 1997, the US placed economic, trade, and financial sanctions on Sudan. In 1998 US launched a cruise missile attack on the capital, Khartoum, due to East Africa Embassy bombings. The last US ambassador departed before the attack and there is still no one there in his place.#
    US and Sudan began talking again in 2000. Sudan provided concrete cooperation against international terrorism after 9/11. However, the Sudanese government criticized the US for strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and were opposed to widening the effort against international terrorism to other countries. Because of this Sudan remains on the US states sponsors of terrorism list. As the crises in Darfur rose, and the Sudanese government was unwilling to stop the violence, president George Bush placed more economic sanctions on Sudan and several Sudanese companies with ties to the government in 2007. He also blocked assets of individuals implicated in Darfur violence in 2007.
    Although the diplomatic and political relations are strained, US continues to be the major donor of humanitarian aid and support for the impoverished and hurting refugees and citizens of Sudan. The US has also been the leader in bringing the international spot light on the issue of Darfur by presenting the dilemma to the UN and Security Council and by asking countries to join in the economic sanctioning. It has also been extremely involved in pressuring Sudan to begin peace talks and start negotiating. It is also committed to making sure that these plans are implemented, and is willing to be the major contributor of financial assistance for peace keeping troops.#
 
4) The US wants:
    “Sustained and measurable achievements in pursuing: 1. A cease-fire and humanitarian access to the Nuba Mountains area; 2. Zones and periods of tranquility for humanitarian access; 3. The introduction of an international commission to investigate slavery, abductions and forced servitude; and 4. The cessation of attacks on civilians.”#
- I believe the united states would like to see a elements of secularism, self determination, and equal representation in the structure of the government to make sure atrocities like the genocide in Darfur and support for Islamism extremist groups diminish. The US is in no place to push Sudan into negotiation other than through international pressure and sanctions, and so would settle for the implementation of the agreements signed in the Sudan Peace Act and at least the any kind of peace agreement that ensured a cease fire and halt of killings in Darfur.

5)     Differences in Preventative and Crises negotiation can be seen through the situation in Sudan through the form, expediency, and intricacy in which the negotiations took place. Although preventative negotiations are sometimes successful in stopping a crises before they begin, in this case, it was slow and unproductive. I think this was due to the history of violence in Sudan. The conflicts that fueled the killings in Darfur were there long before the genocide began. Tensions between the north and south and various tribal and cultural groups had been brewing for many, many years and so this negotiation was really too late. Or as Jim Goodby, chapter author in the book Preventative Negotiation: Avoiding Conflict Escalation, states; “once you are negotiating to prevent conflict escalation, it’s too late. You are doing crisis management.”
    Preventative negotiation has its weakness in that trying to solve a crises before it starts with international partners can seem as though they imposing on their sovereignty, or it gives the perception of the state, in pre crises, as being incapable of solving its own issues. Sudan responded very much in this way to preventative negotiation. Another weakness in preventative negotiation is that it is human nature to be problem solvers, not problem preventors. Because of this, it is hard for us to try look for solutions before there are any major issues.# I think the main difference between preventative and crises negotiation is urgency. When people aren’t dieing, people aren’t interested. Or when there is no crises, the issue is too easy to ignore. But once there is a crises, an urgency to end the conflict makes pressures for negotiation increase.
    Although preventative negotiation has its weaknesses, its main advantage is that it prevents crises sometimes. This saves lives and efforts and brings about longer spans of peace. It is hard to reach a resolution in crises negotiation , especially in Sudan, because it is in the heat of the moment. Attacks are being made and emotions are more likely to play a larger role in the parties negotiations, which delay, prolong, and destruct the negotiation process from being successful. Despite this, it brings the spot light on the issue. At least, after a certain amount of time in crises, parties get tired and outside pressure can push the resolution forward. The US and various other countries and organizations strongly took hold of pushing mediation in Sudan after killings began, and America especially turned up the heat once they recognized the killings in Sudan as a genocide.
    With the eyes of the world watching, Sudan knows it has to accept peace soon if it does not want to invite coercive international intervention. At least there is acknowledgement of the issue, and there is a resolution being conjured, and the state is at least accepting peace keeping aid unlike it was before. Preventative negotiation in this circumstance was too late and not strong enough to prevent one of the greatest massacres on earth. Hopefully crises negotiation will bring this conflict to an end. 

 

1. A) The primary interest in Darfur is stopping the human rights violations and securing the region so humanitarian aid can reach the camps that need them without the threat of violence.
    - “this Darfur situation does cast this huge shadow, and that's why we said in the Sudan Peace Act that we would not -- you know, we've always told the Government of Sudan, if there's a peace agreement we will normalize relations with you. Now we'vesaid, well, if there's a peace agreement we will not normalize relations with you until the Darfur thing is addressed.”# 
                -USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios
- Since the Bush Administration labeled the acts in Darfur as a genocide, they have been inclined to do something about it. They have labeled stopping human rights violations through diplomatic means as their primary interest.
    - “The brutal treatment of innocent civilians in Darfur is unacceptable — it is     unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to Americans, it’s unacceptable to the United     Nations. This status quo must not continue.” #
                – President George W. Bush
- One interest that will never fail is the interest of American national security, which is on par with the interest of humanitarian relief. Sudan has long been partners with international terrorist organizations and despite their display of some support for anti-terrorism, they have still shown support to such terrorist organizations as the Hamad and Palestinian.
    -“Protecting the American people from any and all threats that may emanate from     Africa must be a primary policy focus. The events of September 11 and Africa's own sad     experience with the terrorist attacks against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania     necessitate that counter-terrorism concerns remain front and center as an issue in our     diplomatic relations with the Government of Sudan.” #
        -Walter H. Kansteiner, III, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs

B) The killings in Darfur are not only a humanitarian issue that troubles America, but it is also an issue that over shadows the peace process between the north and south. This environment allows for relations with international terrorist organizations persist and hinders our efforts on the war on terrorism.

2) Although America’s interest for national security has usually been its main focus, the urgency of ending the genocide and the urgency for bringing aid before the rainy and disease filled season has brought the issue of humanitarian relief front and center. The conflict must end so the Sudan Peace Act can proceed. The act will help stabilize the region so we can begin to normalize our relation with the Sudanese government.  Building our relationship with the Sudanese government is essential to gaining influence in anti-terrorist efforts. Sudan has had past relations with terrorist organizations, even harboring Osama Bin Ladin at one point.# Their relations with such terrorist organizations still exist, although not as extensively as before, and we have a vested interest in gaining stabilization in Sudan for that reason. Africa itself is in its own mess, and if trouble in Sudan were to heat up to the point of succession and all out war between the north and the south, we could see chaos overcome Africa. Many neighboring countries, like Chad, Libya, Egypt, are involved in the conflict either through mediation or direct aid with refugees and supplying arms to rebel groups. Stabilization of the Sudan is essential to the stabilization whole international region surrounding Sudan, which is the reason for our pressure to bring the Darfur genocide into the face of the actors of the UN. A chaotic region is hard to have relations with, and stabilization and communication in Sudan and the African region are key in perusing our interests of national security. It is also important for the US to act upon such atrocities in the international scene because “unchecked violence in the face of an obvious capacity to react erodes the rule of law and our international leadership.”# At the present moment the US is the leader of this world and so needs to react to such events with urgency to sustain their standing.

3)      Historically, the united states created diplomatic relations with Sudan after the end of WWII when Sudan gained its independence on January 1st, 1956. The US broke relations with Sudan in 1967 due to the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War, but improved during the cold war, when the Sudanese Communist Party attempted to overthrow the reigning president. After 1972, relations were improving again until a Palestinian terrorist group called “Black September” murdered US ambassador in Khartoum. Relations were weak until president Nimeiri mediated the release of ten American hostages being held in Ethiopia. By 1976, the US resumed economic assistance.# 
    In 1985-1986 Sudan was receiving the largest development and military assistance from the US than any other African state. During this time relations were strained due to a presence of Libyan terrorist groups. Relations deteriorated when a US Embassy employ was shot. Assistance was suspended when a military coup overthrew the government and placed the National Islamist Front led by General Bashir in power in 1989. US relations were further hampered when they proceeded to provide sanctuary to Islamic terrorist groups in the 1990’s. In 1997, the US placed economic, trade, and financial sanctions on Sudan. In 1998 US launched a cruise missile attack on the capital, Khartoum, due to East Africa Embassy bombings. The last US ambassador departed before the attack and there is still no one there in his place.#
    US and Sudan began talking again in 2000. Sudan provided concrete cooperation against international terrorism after 9/11. However, the Sudanese government criticized the US for strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and were opposed to widening the effort against international terrorism to other countries. Because of this Sudan remains on the US states sponsors of terrorism list. As the crises in Darfur rose, and the Sudanese government was unwilling to stop the violence, president George Bush placed more economic sanctions on Sudan and several Sudanese companies with ties to the government in 2007. He also blocked assets of individuals implicated in Darfur violence in 2007.
    Although the diplomatic and political relations are strained, US continues to be the major donor of humanitarian aid and support for the impoverished and hurting refugees and citizens of Sudan. The US has also been the leader in bringing the international spot light on the issue of Darfur by presenting the dilemma to the UN and Security Council and by asking countries to join in the economic sanctioning. It has also been extremely involved in pressuring Sudan to begin peace talks and start negotiating. It is also committed to making sure that these plans are implemented, and is willing to be the major contributor of financial assistance for peace keeping troops.#
 
4) The US wants:
    “Sustained and measurable achievements in pursuing: 1. A cease-fire and humanitarian access to the Nuba Mountains area; 2. Zones and periods of tranquility for humanitarian access; 3. The introduction of an international commission to investigate slavery, abductions and forced servitude; and 4. The cessation of attacks on civilians.”#
- I believe the united states would like to see a elements of secularism, self determination, and equal representation in the structure of the government to make sure atrocities like the genocide in Darfur and support for Islamism extremist groups diminish. The US is in no place to push Sudan into negotiation other than through international pressure and sanctions, and so would settle for the implementation of the agreements signed in the Sudan Peace Act and at least the any kind of peace agreement that ensured a cease fire and halt of killings in Darfur.

5)     Differences in Preventative and Crises negotiation can be seen through the situation in Sudan through the form, expediency, and intricacy in which the negotiations took place. Although preventative negotiations are sometimes successful in stopping a crises before they begin, in this case, it was slow and unproductive. I think this was due to the history of violence in Sudan. The conflicts that fueled the killings in Darfur were there long before the genocide began. Tensions between the north and south and various tribal and cultural groups had been brewing for many, many years and so this negotiation was really too late. Or as Jim Goodby, chapter author in the book Preventative Negotiation: Avoiding Conflict Escalation, states; “once you are negotiating to prevent conflict escalation, it’s too late. You are doing crisis management.”
    Preventative negotiation has its weakness in that trying to solve a crises before it starts with international partners can seem as though they imposing on their sovereignty, or it gives the perception of the state, in pre crises, as being incapable of solving its own issues. Sudan responded very much in this way to preventative negotiation. Another weakness in preventative negotiation is that it is human nature to be problem solvers, not problem preventors. Because of this, it is hard for us to try look for solutions before there are any major issues.# I think the main difference between preventative and crises negotiation is urgency. When people aren’t dieing, people aren’t interested. Or when there is no crises, the issue is too easy to ignore. But once there is a crises, an urgency to end the conflict makes pressures for negotiation increase.
    Although preventative negotiation has its weaknesses, its main advantage is that it prevents crises sometimes. This saves lives and efforts and brings about longer spans of peace. It is hard to reach a resolution in crises negotiation , especially in Sudan, because it is in the heat of the moment. Attacks are being made and emotions are more likely to play a larger role in the parties negotiations, which delay, prolong, and destruct the negotiation process from being successful. Despite this, it brings the spot light on the issue. At least, after a certain amount of time in crises, parties get tired and outside pressure can push the resolution forward. The US and various other countries and organizations strongly took hold of pushing mediation in Sudan after killings began, and America especially turned up the heat once they recognized the killings in Sudan as a genocide.
    With the eyes of the world watching, Sudan knows it has to accept peace soon if it does not want to invite coercive international intervention. At least there is acknowledgement of the issue, and there is a resolution being conjured, and the state is at least accepting peace keeping aid unlike it was before. Preventative negotiation in this circumstance was too late and not strong enough to prevent one of the greatest massacres on earth. Hopefully crises negotiation will bring this conflict to an end.