After years of campaigning by activists all over the world and extensive legal efforts, Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir is now wanted by the International Criminal Court for three counts of genocide and seven counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. 

He is the only sitting head of state to ever be charged with a crime by the International Criminal Court.

But in a complete reversal of international efforts to isolate Sudan, the Obama administration has told Bashir that if he allows this January's referendum on independence for southern Sudan to go forward as planned and abides by the results, the US will remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism this summer.

'Realists' in the Obama administration contend that such a move is a necessary choice between two evils: on the one hand rewarding a war criminal, on the other hand continuing to ostracize him and end up with Sudan in another civil war.

The US has long had a list of incentives intended to help end the genocide in Darfur and allow for a credible referendum on independence for the south. But the full batch of carrots weren't meant to be given out until 2012, as they were linked to a significant reduction in violence in Darfur.

Now it seems the US has thrown all its bargaining chips onto the table over the upcoming referendum on southern independence.

Assuming that this strategy works, what will the US have left to offer Sudan if ethnic violence, and the government-sponsored genocide in Darfur flares up again?

This is not the strategy most American people voted for, it's not the strategy most Darfur advocacy groups support, nor is it a strategy that most Americans want.

The US president that he campaigned on the claim that "There must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government."

Remind Obama that he represents the people of the United States, who are intelligent enough to decide whether or not they want to be giving gifts to foreign leaders rightfully wanted for genocide.