Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
get the magazine
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
There was something surreal about General Scott Gration's testimony at Thursday's congressional hearings on Darfur. "We are aiming high and we are thinking big. Failure cannot be an option," the broad-faced Air Force general intoned, his tinny voice making him sound like a distant air-traffic controller. "We must proceed with boldness, with hard work to make this proactive and preventative approach work."
Gration, the man President Obama has tasked with fixing the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, often responds with such generalities when quizzed about the specific carrots and sticks he wants to employ while negotiating a peace accord with the genocidal government of Sudan. Several members of the Foreign Relations Committee, who grilled Gration, were extremely concerned that his current policy involves only incentives and no penalties--an approach that seems doomed to fail given Sudan's past negotiating behavior. Senator Russ Feingold Pat Leahy led the charge, demanding assurances that Gration would not simply reward Khartoum without seeing tangible improvements there. Gration could not offer much in the way of concessions from the Sudanese, but he tried to assure Leahy that the U.S. administration's approach would be "very balanced," including incentives and pressures. "In many ways," Gration said, bending the definition of 'stick' close to the breaking point, "the lack of incentives is turning out to be, also, a pressure."
The only time during the hearing that Gration was truly animated was when he denounced U.S. sanctions against Sudan, which he said were undermining economic development in the country's south. "We're going to have to unwind some of these sanctions," he fumed, before agreeing with Senator Bob Corker that U.S. sanctions mean "cutting off our nose to spite our face." Oddly, this testimony flies in the face of statements made by the government of Southern Sudan, which says it doesn't want sanctions lifted, because it too thinks reducing pressure on Khartoum would be counterproductive. Gration was similarly dismissive of the U.S. government's decision to keep Sudan on its list of state sponsors of terrorism, calling the designation "a political decision."
--Barron YoungSmith
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (1)
The fact is that President Obama, despite his professed empathy for Africa and Africans,
has shown less interest in Darfur and Sudan than even his predecessor(s) in office. The
least we could do is designate a real, high-powered attache/counselor/whatever in place of
this do-nothing general--somebody who could stir up some public and international attention
and really push the Administration to take some kind of action. What have Hillary and Susan Rice
had to say about any Darfur-related issue? Approximately nothing. How many comments have
been posted in response to this blog by the usually engaged gang of know-it-alls? Approximately
none, indicating that even they are ... view full comment
The fact is that President Obama, despite his professed empathy for Africa and Africans,
has shown less interest in Darfur and Sudan than even his predecessor(s) in office. The
least we could do is designate a real, high-powered attache/counselor/whatever in place of
this do-nothing general--somebody who could stir up some public and international attention
and really push the Administration to take some kind of action. What have Hillary and Susan Rice
had to say about any Darfur-related issue? Approximately nothing. How many comments have
been posted in response to this blog by the usually engaged gang of know-it-alls? Approximately
none, indicating that even they are bored by the subject. If the victims of the ongoing ethnic
cleansing (or worse) were not poor and black and African, or if we had something at stake
economically, I guarantee you Darfur would get more attention. If all else fails, can't we think
of some humanitarian or security-related or just plain moral reason to send in a few troops,
if only to make it look like we are interested? It wouldn't make any less sense than
maintaining and in fact adding to the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where nobody can understand
or explain what we are trying to do or whom we should be shooting at.