PrintBack in 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama minced no words when it came to Sudan. "When you see a genocide, whether it's in Rwanda or Bosnia or in Darfur, that's a stain on all of us," he said. "That's a stain on our souls." Obama is now president, and Darfur is still a mess. What is taking place there today is not simple to describe. People are no longer being killed at the alarming rate of 2003 and 2004. Yet the region continues to attract the world's attention because two million people remain housed in camps where they live on the brink of disease and starvation, with little hope of returning home in the near future. In Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda, genocides came to a halt when genocidaires were chased from power. But, in Sudan, while the killing has slowed dramatically, those who perpetrated the massacres remain in control of the country, able to toy with the fate of survivors in the cruelest possible manner. Sudan's leaders continue to impede a fair peace settlement, most recently by obstructing Darfuri political representatives from attending peace talks in Addis Ababa. And, in the wake of the indictment of Sudanese President Omar Bashir by the International Criminal Court, the government expelled numerous international aid groups, making the already precarious existence of displaced Darfuris that much worse. Call this situation what you want--the awful aftermath of an unresolved genocide; the second, less violent phase of a bid by Khartoum to punish ethnic groups that supported the rebellion launched in 2003--but, whatever you label Darfur in 2009, it is still a terrible catastrophe.
Since Obama is a pragmatist--and pragmatism is, by definition, what works--we should judge his policies in this area by a single standard: Are they accomplishing the goal of ending Darfur's suffering? We are sad to say that the initial signs have not been encouraging. In fact, as Obama supporters, we are extraordinarily disappointed.
The challenges are twofold. How to get the aid groups back in? And how to push toward a settlement that allows Darfuris to begin returning home--and insulates them from the whims of Khartoum by granting them physical security and some measure of political autonomy? These are urgent matters. Yet Darfur has not seemed to be a priority for the new administration. Even though the situation has grown more dire with the expulsion of the aid groups, Obama has expended few public words on the subject. Maybe he is working furiously behind the scenes to get the aid groups back into the region, but, if that is the case, then he has failed badly, since Sudan is more or less standing its ground. (In a typically obnoxious move, Khartoum has agreed to let in other aid groups, just not the ones that were kicked out in the first place. But, since those kicked out were among the largest and most capable in the world, this is, quite obviously, an unacceptable solution.)
But it is not just the seeming absence of focus on Darfur that troubles us. What little indication we have of the administration's plans has been troubling as well. The Washington Post recently quoted a Darfur activist who had met with Obama's Sudan envoy, Scott Gration, three times. The activist described Gration's approach as follows: "He thinks that to keep banging on Khartoum is not the right way. He said he wants to build rapport with Khartoum." If this is truly going to be the administration's strategy, then it is deeply wrongheaded. Sudan's leaders are willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. For decades, they have not hesitated to slaughter huge numbers of their own people (first in southern Sudan, later in Darfur) in order to preserve their rule. But, operating under the same logic of survival by any means necessary, they have also proved willing to play ball with the West when--as after September 11--they felt that they simply had no choice. Which suggests that, if there is to be relief for the people of Darfur--if the aid groups are to be readmitted and the peace process is to move forward--Khartoum will have to feel pressure from the United States. This means diplomatic pressure, tougher multilateral sanctions, and the credible threat of military force. As the anti-genocide activists at Save Darfur, the Enough Project, and the Genocide Intervention Network recently wrote, "[T]he Sudanese government responds much more directly to pressures than they do to incentives."
Not surprisingly, alarm is growing among many liberals about this administration's approach to Darfur. Everyone from a relative dove like Nicholas Kristof to a relative hawk like (TNR contributor) Eric Reeves has expressed concern over the trajectory of Obama's Sudan policy. Count us among them. We hope that Obama will reverse course on Darfur. Meanwhile, the stain on our souls only grows.
By The Editors
COMMENTS (17)
Thank you for publishing this. People try to dismiss Darfur activism as some trendy thing, but the only reason Obama has lifted a finger to help Darfur (and that's all he's done) is because of articles like this one and others' hard work to make the administration do something. It's clear that the envoy was just appointed to appease us, but we're not stupid, and we will not let Obama off the hook. Where is the promised Sudan policy review? It was supposed to be completed months ago. I suspect China's support for our economic plans was contingent on us dropping issues like this. We ignore the long term costs of abandoning human rights efforts at our own peril.
Thank you for publishing this. People try to dismiss Darfur activism as some trendy thing, but the only reason Obama has lifted a finger to help Darfur (and that's all he's done) is because of articles like this one and others' hard work to make the administration do something. It's clear that the envoy was just appointed to appease us, but we're not stupid, and we will not let Obama off the hook. Where is the promised Sudan policy review? It was supposed to be completed months ago. I suspect China's support for our economic plans was contingent on us dropping issues like this. We ignore the long term costs of abandoning human rights efforts at our own peril.
Obama seems to have gone soft on tyranny everywhere. His continual apologies to the Muslim world are enough to make a buzzard puke. We liberated Kuwait, we fought against the Christians in Yugoslavia on behalf of the Muslims. Bill Clinton twisted the Israelis’ arms until they offered the Palestinians everything they had asked for. Thousands of Americans have given their lives to liberate Iraq from a genocidal dictator who was responsible for the death of millions.
Meanwhile Islamo-fascist terrorists have murdered millions around the world. The Islamic world remains an ocean of poverty, tyranny, stupidity and all around barbarism.
And we are supposed to apologize? Give me a g.d. break. ... view full comment
Obama seems to have gone soft on tyranny everywhere. His continual apologies to the Muslim world are enough to make a buzzard puke. We liberated Kuwait, we fought against the Christians in Yugoslavia on behalf of the Muslims. Bill Clinton twisted the Israelis’ arms until they offered the Palestinians everything they had asked for. Thousands of Americans have given their lives to liberate Iraq from a genocidal dictator who was responsible for the death of millions.
Meanwhile Islamo-fascist terrorists have murdered millions around the world. The Islamic world remains an ocean of poverty, tyranny, stupidity and all around barbarism.
And we are supposed to apologize? Give me a g.d. break. How about they apologize for all the Americans they have murdered?
Liberals consider the attempt of the Bush administration to take the Muslim world out of the dark ages to be "cultural arrogance". Better "cultural arrogance" than nuclear war.
Whining liberal apologies will never earn us respect among Muslims. They hold cowards in contempt and they are right to do so. What will earn us respect is holding fast to our values and a willingness to support those values in the field with manly valor.
Live free or die.
Actually Obama was already windsocking on Darfur during the campaign (and that quote, in response to a question, was one of the few times he mentioned Darfur after anouncing). In fact, the New Republic ran a staff editorial years ago questioning why Obama, in a letter to George W. Bush (I think co-written with Sam Brownback) had turned so wishy-washy on what is the only genocide officially labeled as such by the US government while it is ongoing.
Progressives have largely bit their tongue on Darfur, first because in 2004 they didn't want to do anything that might support President Bush's doctrine of unilateral intervention (if you can do it for a genocide/ethnic cleansing, how bad can it b ... view full comment
Actually Obama was already windsocking on Darfur during the campaign (and that quote, in response to a question, was one of the few times he mentioned Darfur after anouncing). In fact, the New Republic ran a staff editorial years ago questioning why Obama, in a letter to George W. Bush (I think co-written with Sam Brownback) had turned so wishy-washy on what is the only genocide officially labeled as such by the US government while it is ongoing.
Progressives have largely bit their tongue on Darfur, first because in 2004 they didn't want to do anything that might support President Bush's doctrine of unilateral intervention (if you can do it for a genocide/ethnic cleansing, how bad can it be for Saddam Hussein's regime). Now they've bit their tongue because, frankly, black African lives aren't worth the "cost" (complicating Obama's outreach to the Arab world, or just criticizing Obama on anything other than not closing Gitmo fast enough or other continuations of Bush foreign policy). Kudos to the New Republic for calling it like it is.
One other comment: President Obama was clearly either caught off-guard by the ICC indictment of Al-Bashir or purposefully declined to act forcefully at the time of the expulsion of aid workers. A cynic would suspect that this is the deal he's working on: get the aid workers back in in exchange for leaving Sudan's genocidal leadership in peace and let them play out Darfur slowly, with nobody but some crunchy granola activists carping about it for years. A good argument could be made at this point for doing that as the best that can be achieved given his political will, but Obama would hardly deserve praise for restoring a pathetic 2008 status quo.
One other comment: President Obama was clearly either caught off-guard by the ICC indictment of Al-Bashir or purposefully declined to act forcefully at the time of the expulsion of aid workers. A cynic would suspect that this is the deal he's working on: get the aid workers back in in exchange for leaving Sudan's genocidal leadership in peace and let them play out Darfur slowly, with nobody but some crunchy granola activists carping about it for years. A good argument could be made at this point for doing that as the best that can be achieved given his political will, but Obama would hardly deserve praise for restoring a pathetic 2008 status quo.
Could it be because Obama is no different than any other piece of crap politcian? You know, he'll say what he needs to to get elected - and he needed to say less than most - and then walk away from it? That tough talk was fun, but don't overthink it, kids...
"You said if I slept with you I wouldn't have to touch the drunk!"
"Duffman says a lot of things!"
Could it be because Obama is no different than any other piece of crap politcian? You know, he'll say what he needs to to get elected - and he needed to say less than most - and then walk away from it? That tough talk was fun, but don't overthink it, kids...
"You said if I slept with you I wouldn't have to touch the drunk!"
"Duffman says a lot of things!"
Darfur will not help his poll numbers and will cost more than just dollars, so he doesn't care.
Darfur will not help his poll numbers and will cost more than just dollars, so he doesn't care.
"Obama is now president, and Darfur is still a mess."
It's only been four months!!! And in case you haven't noticed, he kind of has a lot on his plate.
"Obama is now president, and Darfur is still a mess."
It's only been four months!!! And in case you haven't noticed, he kind of has a lot on his plate.
Maybe President Obama is a little preoccupied with the insurmountable challenges here. Why is it that every group feels they should be the sole benefactors or the POTUS time?
Maybe President Obama is a little preoccupied with the insurmountable challenges here. Why is it that every group feels they should be the sole benefactors or the POTUS time?
WHAT?? What a dumb title. The reason is because the man is ALL talk, just like every other politician. Why the american idol nation can't recognize it, and those that do won't admit it, is beyond my comprehension. He's reversed on a lot more issues than just this, in a very short amount of time.
WHAT?? What a dumb title. The reason is because the man is ALL talk, just like every other politician. Why the american idol nation can't recognize it, and those that do won't admit it, is beyond my comprehension. He's reversed on a lot more issues than just this, in a very short amount of time.
"Why is that every group feels they should be the sole benefactors or the POTUS time?"
Because this group was massacred for no good reason and is now being slowly starved to death in god forsaken camps while the world has watched and done nothing, all at the hands of a regime that harbored Osama Bin Laden during the 1990s while he plotted ways to kill innocent Americans. But yea, Poetry Jams are more worthy of his time, I agree.
Presidents don't have to do everything themselves, but they should pick a staff to deal with the issues they don't have time for - and give them the power to make and execute policy, rather than doing nothing. The I'm too busy argument is pure bullshit.
"Why is that every group feels they should be the sole benefactors or the POTUS time?"
Because this group was massacred for no good reason and is now being slowly starved to death in god forsaken camps while the world has watched and done nothing, all at the hands of a regime that harbored Osama Bin Laden during the 1990s while he plotted ways to kill innocent Americans. But yea, Poetry Jams are more worthy of his time, I agree.
Presidents don't have to do everything themselves, but they should pick a staff to deal with the issues they don't have time for - and give them the power to make and execute policy, rather than doing nothing. The I'm too busy argument is pure bullshit.
Anon, then maybe he should have not talked smack about Darfur during the campaign. See selish, above.
Elsyd, tell me when he'll get to it. Four months, four years - won't matter. He won't do squat, and everybody knows it.
Anon, then maybe he should have not talked smack about Darfur during the campaign. See selish, above.
Elsyd, tell me when he'll get to it. Four months, four years - won't matter. He won't do squat, and everybody knows it.
As callous as he sounds, anon is right. There is a limit. No one wants to pay what is required, namely regime change. It is the same reason Zimbabwe has slowly choking to death like a man in a garrot. At an absolutle minimum the West would have to mount a shadow war against Khartoum by arming the rebel groups and giving them a little focus, like the 1980 afghani insurgency. But how are you going to get that kind of funding through Congress? Especially when every last dollar is already spent. It's a shame that the greater evil wins this one, but that seems to be the case.
As callous as he sounds, anon is right. There is a limit. No one wants to pay what is required, namely regime change. It is the same reason Zimbabwe has slowly choking to death like a man in a garrot. At an absolutle minimum the West would have to mount a shadow war against Khartoum by arming the rebel groups and giving them a little focus, like the 1980 afghani insurgency. But how are you going to get that kind of funding through Congress? Especially when every last dollar is already spent. It's a shame that the greater evil wins this one, but that seems to be the case.
Um, there is a lake of oil under Darfur. France and China have D&E contracts with Sudan. There is a cruel despot in power wiping out minority groups. Sounds a little bit like this other country...I can't remember it's name...Oh, yes, IRAQ!
Um, there is a lake of oil under Darfur. France and China have D&E contracts with Sudan. There is a cruel despot in power wiping out minority groups. Sounds a little bit like this other country...I can't remember it's name...Oh, yes, IRAQ!
Remember Somalia? Nobody wants us in that region of the world. We should fast track immigration for people who have fled Darfur, provide healthcare, language, and vocational training for the newly minted Americans.
Remember Somalia? Nobody wants us in that region of the world. We should fast track immigration for people who have fled Darfur, provide healthcare, language, and vocational training for the newly minted Americans.
Can't we at least accidentally have a daisy-cutter fall out of a plane and onto Bashir's palace in Khartoum? I bet Dick Cheney wouldn't mind a bit being blamed for it, even.
Can't we at least accidentally have a daisy-cutter fall out of a plane and onto Bashir's palace in Khartoum? I bet Dick Cheney wouldn't mind a bit being blamed for it, even.
The reason is complicated, but one part of it is folks like TNR. There are good reasons for a more activist U.S. role in the Sudan, but when hawkish publications, commentators, and politicians advocate for such intervention (after having advocated for bad intervention after bad intervention), it makes the rest of us queasy. Part of the reason we can't/won't go into Sudan aggressively is because we've squandered so much of our political capital in that part of the world on other military adventures - thanks TNR-style "liberals" - making it harder to do the types of interventions we SHOULD be doing.
The reason is complicated, but one part of it is folks like TNR. There are good reasons for a more activist U.S. role in the Sudan, but when hawkish publications, commentators, and politicians advocate for such intervention (after having advocated for bad intervention after bad intervention), it makes the rest of us queasy. Part of the reason we can't/won't go into Sudan aggressively is because we've squandered so much of our political capital in that part of the world on other military adventures - thanks TNR-style "liberals" - making it harder to do the types of interventions we SHOULD be doing.
Amen
Amen