President Bush, according to the Washington Post is about to send a special envoy to Khartoum to palaver with Islamist President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Al-Bashir‘s regime had harbored bin Laden and has engaged in genocidal warfare against black Muslims in Darfur. Recently, Darfurian rebels attacked Khartoum, itself. The Washington Post makes much of the hypocrisy of publicly stating that we don’t talk to heads of state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iranian President Ahmadinejad or young reckless Bashar Assad in Damascus. So, why does the administration dally with Al-Bashir who orchestrated a campaign in Southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths over two decades?

Here’s the ‘diplobabble’ from the Bush White House according to the Washington Post
:

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the administration has been willing to talk with both Sudan and Iran — though in the case of Iran, only if it halts uranium enrichment. “We enter into discussions with countries where we have leverage to achieve results,” he said. ” In the case of Sudan, they want better relations with the United States and we want to stop a genocide.”

Those who have dealt with Sudan for the Bush administration say they have helped secure a peace deal between the Sudanese government and southern rebels and have taken other steps to avert a worse humanitarian disaster. But Williamson acknowledged a certain unease over negotiating with Bashir and other top Sudanese officials to allow U.N. peacekeepers into the country and fulfill other U.S. objectives.

“When you are dealing with people who have done really bad things, there are difficult moral and political issues that keep you awake at night,” he said. “But if you see a way where you may be able to save lives and ameliorate humanitarian suffering, you test the opportunity.”

But the facts on the ground are that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), brokered by former US Senator John Danforth concluded in 2005 between the Islamist north and the Christian animist south, Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) is not working. The evidence for that are recent clashes between Sudan’s national army and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army in the Abyei boundary area in mid May. As reported by The Economist (“The South is on the brink too”) those clashes resulted in significant casualties and more than 50,000 fleeing into the bush leaving the town virtually deserted.

Why? The Islamist central government in Khartoum wants control over the oil rich region in the South and has not agreed to the conclusions of an international boundary commission that would include Abyei in the area administered by the SPLM. Abyei’s wells pump over 500,000 barrels daily worth over $1.8 billion in revenues, annually. The SPLM that administers the South under the CPA may elect to accelerate their rights of a secessionist referendum and include Abyei in the breakaway new state, if there is no assent to the boundary commission findings and recommendations. The Khartoum Islamists are prepared to re-open the murderous Jihad against the SPLM. The issue would be what the US would do to prevent it. Supporting a breakaway Christian animist republic in the South of Sudan with l control over vast oil deposits and the economic means of development would seem to be in the strategic interest of the US. But, unfortunately, our government would rather appease to Islamists and salvage the CPA, which is already tottering on the brink of failure. Our government appears to be dhimmi appeasers in the Sudan desperate to maintain the integrity of the country and dominance of the extremist Al-Bashir government.