Presidential Candidates and Their Stance on Darfur
During last night’s CNN-YouTube debate among Democratic hopefuls, the candidates were asked what they would do to make Darfur safe.
Governor Richardson, the candidate with the most direct experience with Sudan, argued for a diplomatic approach to convince China and the EU to increase economic and political pressures on the Sudanese government. He also argued for using diplomacy at the UN to replace AU troops with UN troops, noting that these UN peacekeeping troops would be “primarily Muslim.”
Sen. Biden argued that Darfur can be likened to Bosnia under Milosevic, thus that the situation there calls for the swift deployment of U.S. troops. Recalling one of his visits to a Darfurian refugee camp during which a man told him “Thank you. Thank you, America for coming,” Biden claimed that 2,500 Americans could “stop the genocide now.” He concluded his remarks by advocating for a no-fly zone.
Former Senator Gravel blamed the situation on an irresponsible American foreign policy that has made African nations afraid of U.S. involvement.
Senator Clinton agreed with Richardson on the need to increase pressure on China, as well as his proposal to step up economic sanctions on the Sudanese government in addition to speeding up divestment from Sudan. She agreed with Biden on the need for a no-fly zone, noting “we can do it in a way that doesn’t endanger humanitarian relief.” According to Clinton, the no-fly zone would be enforced by NATO, with the United States providing vital logistical support. Unlike Biden, Clinton does not support U.S. troops on the ground in Darfur.
Senators Dodd, Kucinich, Obama, and former Senator Edwards were not given an opportunity to respond to the question. However, Senators Dodd and Obama (as well as Biden and Clinton) co-sponsored Senate Resolution 559 (introduced on Sept. 7, 2006), which encouraged President Bush to work with NATO and the UN in establishing a no-fly zone.
So which one (if any) has it right?
Governor Bill Richardson is closest to the mark. He is correct about diplomacy. There must be a political solution and the U.S. should exercise diplomatic leadership. But what does that entail? One point is leadership within a multilateral system. American standing is now so tarnished globally—especially in the Arab and Muslim world—that the U.S. simply doesn’t have the leverage to achieve solutions that it possessed just a few years ago. So working with the U.K., France and China—not to mention African and Arab countries—is essential. Pressure is important, but pressure works only if there is complete clarity about what the Sudan government needs to do to meet the U.S. demands.
Former Senator Mike Gravel has hit on a key point. One of the first things the U.S. government must do is establish a good line of communication with the Sudan government. It’s fine for campaigners to demonize Khartoum but political leaders should be strategic and not propagandistic. Darfur’s problems originate with Khartoum and by the same token the solutions must come through Khartoum. Unfortunately, the combination of megaphone diplomacy and the failure to give any recognition or reward when the Sudan government has actually done what has been asked of it (notably signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 and withdrawing its forces from Southern Sudan), mean that there’s a complete breakdown of reliable communication between the two capitals. Unless that communication is established, nothing—I repeat, nothing—that Washington DC tries to do will work.
What about the military options—a no-fly zone and American troops in Darfur? Senator Hilary Clinton’s idea that we can have a no-fly zone that doesn’t endanger humanitarian relief is extremely odd (unless she means the kind of ground monitoring of the ban on offensive military flights that I suggest in my July 11 posting). She suggests that the U.S. military take over the humanitarian airbridge to Darfur. But that means very little unless the U.S. or its allies also control the ground. In theory perhaps 2500 U.S. troops could then secure the airfields and the supply routes to the IDP camps. But we can be sure that the Sudan government will strenuously object and we would be locked into another cycle of escalating threats and counter-threats. For what? Just to maintain the humanitarian status quo and to stop the airforce—a minor player in Darfur’s crisis—from flying. I cannot think of a serious humanitarian or human rights organization that advocates anything approaching this—it’s very strange that politicians should be advocating a no-fly zone when most of the activist groups have abandoned the idea.
There’s a danger that Darfur is becoming a blank screen onto which U.S. politicians project their moral credentials. A simplified genocide narrative is getting in the way of seeing Darfur with any clarity. The presidential hopefuls are floating military proposals that might have made sense at the height of the Bosnian war or the Rwanda genocide but which bear little relation to the realities of Darfur today.
Sam Rosmarin notes that "Sen. Biden argued that Darfur can be likened to Bosnia under Milosevic, thus that the situation there calls for the swift deployment of U.S. troops."Â
With this (highly dubious) parallel in mind, what are we to make of the amendment to the Department of Defence funding bill addressing force deployment in Chad that Sens. Biden and Dodd, another presidential hopeful, recently introduced in the Senate? The amendment proposes "upgrading" the airport at Abeche in eastern Chad and notes that it "could play a significant role in potential United Nations, African Union, or North Atlantic Treaty Organization humanitarian, peacekeeping, or other military operations in Darfur, Sudan, or the surrounding region."
The outgoing ambassador to Chad, Mark Wall, is reported as saying that he has not heard any complaints about the existing airstrip, which is lengthy and in pretty good condition – good enough not just for the humanitarian operations currently being staged from Abeche, but for the French troops and military transport planes that are stationed in Abeche.
Am I the only one who suspects that while the presidential wannabes are talking about "humanitarian" operations what they really have in mind is a no-fly zone and military intervention?
There’s an alarming logic here that needs to be surfaced. It runs: the U.S. needs to enforce a no-fly zone. But we know it will create a crisis. That crisis will be so bad that the U.S. needs to send ground troops as well to provide humanitarian supplies and protection.
Take for example the “Plan B with Teeth” proposed by “Enough” in May. It has two military components: a no-fly zone and non-consensual force deployment. The authors correctly note that “Khartoum will perceive a No Fly Zone as an act of war” and may take reprisal (or indeed pre-emptative) actions accordingly, for example shutting down the humanitarian aid operation. As John Prendergast said in his testimony to the House on April 19, that disaster would be “on our watch.” The now-well-established humanitarian dictum of “first, do no harm,” would entail that the idea of a NFZ be promptly abandoned, because its perils so hugely outweigh its benefits. But, the “Enough” logic is the converse: because this may bring about a deterioration in the situation, the U.S. should prepare for a non-consensual force deployment because “it would be irresponsible to only pursue the implementation of a no-fly zone in the absence of any preparation to protect displaced camps and humanitarian aid efforts that could be targeted as a result.”
What really follows is that it’s irresponsible to pursue a NFZ, period. In our debate at the Holocaust Museum, Prendergast didn’t even try to argue the point. But this convoluted logic seems to have crept into the U.S. political debate. No wonder that Bashir thinks there’s an agenda of invasion and regime change here. Enough of this irresponsibility!