While candidate Obama spoke out fiercely against genocide in Darfur, President Obama extended a hand to the architects of the killing in Khartoum. The Administration’s policy review on Sudan, completed late last year, promised a new strategy of engagement with Sudan, spearheaded by Sudanese envoy, General Scott Gration.
For the moment, that policy, Gration claims, is on the verge of yielding positive results. “We have had agreements in the past; most have failed. I think this is different.” Gration’s optimism is powered by the signing by President Omar al-Bashir of a ceasefire deal in Doha with the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), the largest rebel group in Darfur.
The Doha pact lays out a timetable for negotiations, promises to protect and defend Darfur’s residents from violence and intimidation, and commits Khartoum to establishing fair representation in democratic institutions. Chad, Sudan’s western neighbor, has also joined in the peace process, lowering tensions between rival neighbors.
While the ceasefire may be a positive sign, Sudan has a long way to go until it reaches stability. Other Darfur rebel groups have denounced the North’s deal with JEM. Additional points of controversy include a proposed referendum in 2011 to determine Darfur’s potential independence, resolution of war crime charges laid against al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court, and the upcoming April presidential elections to be held in most of Sudan, including the non-Arab south.
The Obama Administration is likely to claim a rare foreign policy victory in Darfur. But the U.S. should not get ahead of itself. With an estimated 300,000 people dead and 2.7 million displaced, any movement towards a permanent resolution is welcome. But the negotiations are only one step towards reducing violence in Darfur and must not be used as an excuse to prematurely lift sanctions. Sudan’s process of recovery has a long way to go and it must be held accountable.
It is still far from clear what the White House’s new strategy to pass health care reform will be in the face of Scott Brown’s election to the Senate. But according to Federal News Radio negotiations between the House and Senate are still ongoing, including this victory for House Democrats:
Federal employees covered under some of the more expensive plans in the Federal Employees Heath Benefit Program now have some breathing room as well.
Federal workers had been left out of an earlier compromise on health care reform shielding union workers from a proposed 40-percent excise tax until 2018.
The office of Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) says he “personally called the White House to express his concern of leaving federal employees out of the deal.” An agreement reached Wednesday extends the exemption to federal employees through 2018 as well.
The Senate bill’s health insurance excise tax is terrible public policy. Although the insurance companies would technically make the tax payment (a 40% levy on insurance plans worth more than $8,000 a year for individuals) they would undoubtedly pass this cost along to employers purchasing the plans for their workers in the form of higher premiums. Employers, in turn, would pass that cost on to their workers by lowering other forms of compensation like wages. Once the excise tax is passed on to workers, the result is no different than an increase in their income taxes. Faced with the possibility of paying substantially higher taxes, many workers would logically look for ways to avoid the tax. The first way they could avoid it would be by reducing the value of their health benefits below the threshold. If workers take less expensive health care coverage, they would want higher wages so as not to experience a reduction in total compensation. But this would not allow them to escape higher taxes completely, since higher wages would also be taxed.
Instead of facing this mess, Congress has reportedly chosen to exempt federal workers … which last time we checked included Members of Congress.