Senator Kerry meets with Sudanese presidential adviser Ghazi Salaheddine during a visit to Khartoum on Saturday (Photo: Ashraf Shazly/AFP/Getty Images)

As I wrote yesterday, we do not see Senator Kerry’s weekend diplomacy as a significant departure from the sequenced strategy announced by the Obama Administration in September. The Administration claims that while it might take Sudan off the State Sponsors of Terrorism List as soon as July 2011, sanctions associated with being on that list will not be lifted until Darfur is resolved. Anyway, these sanctions are quite narrow and the Administration has put itself on the record that the comprehensive sanctions will not come off until the requirements set forth in the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, passed by Congress and signed into law in 2006, are met. These requirements are as follows:

1. Implement the Darfur Peace Agreement.
2. Disarm, demobilize, and demilitarize the Janjaweed and all militias allied with the Government of Sudan.
3. Adhere to all associated United Nations Security Council Resolutions, including Security Council Resolutions 1556 (2004), 1564 (2004), 1591 (2005), 1593 (2005), 1663 (2006), 1665 (2006), and 1706 (2006).
4. Negotiate a peaceful resolution to the crisis in eastern Sudan.
5. Fully cooperate with efforts to disarm, demobilize, and deny safe haven to members of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Sudan.
6. Fully implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan without manipulation or delay by:
   • implementing the recommendations of the Abyei Boundaries Commission Report;
   • establishing other appropriate commissions and implementing and adhering to the recommendations of such commissions consistent with the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan;
   • adhering to the terms of the Wealth Sharing Agreement; and
   • withdrawing government forces from Southern Sudan consistent with the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan.

As you can see, some of these are out-of-date. We would add others if we were making the list today. For example, the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in 2006 does not adequately address the fundamental grievances of Darfuris and its implementation will not resolve the conflict. It is important that we push the Administration and Congress to interpret these requirements in ways that are consistent with current realities on the ground. Specifically, sanctions should not be rolled back until there is resolution of the Darfur crisis, including negotiation and implementation of a new, comprehensive peace agreement.

We are often asked why Congress is important if foreign policy is primarily determined by the executive branch. There are many reasons. One is that members of Congress are effective advocates because they have leverage with the administration. They have leverage because they vote on the president’s budgets and bills. On Sudan, this influence has led to appointments of Special Envoys, among other useful measures. But, as we see in this case, Congress also makes policy through legislation. Sometimes the affect of the legislation is not felt for months or years. In this case, the President must implement his carrots-and-sticks policy within congressional guidelines. The President will have to certify to Congress that the requirements they listed in the DPAA have been met before sanctions are rolled back. We need to work with Congress over the coming months to ensure they are educated on whether or not facts on the ground justify ending the sanctions regime.