B and B

Stronger action is needed on Darfur: Bush's sanctions on Sudan are "too late and too little"

President Bush has finally gotten around to strengthening the sanctions against the Sudanese government due to their support for the atrocities in Darfur. 

Deb Reichman of the Associated Press puts it bluntly:

The sanctions target about 30 companies involved in Sudan's oil industry, and three individuals, including a rebel leader suspected of being involved in the violence in Darfur.

It has taken President Bush nearly three years to match his impassioned rhetoric about what he decries as genocide in Darfur with tougher U.S. action against some of those blamed for the suffering.

Sean-Paul Kelley at the Agonist thinks these new sanctions are "toothless" due to loopholes that allow Sudan to bring in money for their oil by just shifting how they do business slightly.

The director of the Save Darfur Coalition, David Rubinstein, claims that these sanctions are "too late and too little."  He urges Bush not to dawdle on determining whether the new sanctions are working or not.

President Bush must not give further months to determine whether these outlined measures work -- the Darfuri people don't have that much time.  The president must set a short and firm deadline for fundamental changes in Sudanese behavior, and prepare now to implement immediately further measures should Khartoum continue to stonewall. Further action should include the full range of sanctions authorized in the 2006 Darfur Peace and Accountability Act – including the banning of entry of ships into U.S. ports that have carried Sudanese oil, immediate steps to implement a no-fly zone, and developing contingency plans for any potential security collapse.  Such further measures should also include extending proposed UN sanctions beyond the three currently targeted individuals to encompass all those in the Sudanese regime responsible for this genocide, from President al-Bashir on down.

Some other quotes from Reichman's AP article:

John Prendergast, policy adviser to ENOUGH Project, an advocacy group to prevent genocide and mass atrocities:  "Three people? After four years? And not one of them the real ringleader of the policy to divide and destroy Darfur?  This will not end the crisis in Darfur."

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee:  "They could have sent a stronger message months ago and saved many lives from being disrupted or lost."

When are we going to get a strong leader in this country?  De we really have to wait until at least January 2009?

Kristof: Genocide easier to stop than we realize

Why must the New York Times hide Nick Kristof's articles behind their subscription firewall?  As many people as possible need to hear his words on Darfur.

In yesterday's column, Kristof tries to tell us that the horrors in Darfur are easier to stop than most people may realize.  He writes (emphasis added):

Where [genocide] arises from a weighing of costs and benefits, then it is possible for outsiders to impose additional costs and change the outcome. That’s what we need to do. The U.S. should lead other countries in pushing hard on all sides for a negotiated peace agreement among the warring factions, for that is ultimately the best hope to end the slaughter in Darfur and in neighboring areas in Chad and the Central African Republic.

I find President Bashir’s ruthlessness pretty easy to understand. What is harder to fathom is President Bush’s refusal to stand up to the genocide for four years. Why not impose a no-fly zone, why not hold an international conference on Darfur, why not invite survivors to the White House for a photo-op, why not give a prime-time speech about Darfur?

Perhaps the explanation for Mr. Bush’s passivity is the same as the explanation for Mr. Bashir’s brutality. Maybe Mr. Bush has made his calculations, looked at the number of calls and letters he gets about Darfur, weighed the pros and cons, and decided that Americans really don’t care enough about genocide to make him pay a major price for allowing it to continue.

Many, such as the members of the San Antonio Interfaith Darfur Coalition, already understand that every little bit of action helps.  But we need more to join in.  According to Nick Kristof, it doesn't take much.

How can we end the horrors in Darfur?

What can we do to end the horrors being perpetrated in Darfur?  Is divestment from companies that invest in Sudan enough?  Given the pain, the suffering, and the killing going on every day in Darfur, as the Sudanese government appears to perpetually put off allowing any meaningful peacekeeping force to enter the country, I am strongly tempted to jump on Senator Joe Biden's latest suggestion--send U.S. troops and put and end to the slaughter once and for all.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."

In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could "radically change the situation on the ground now."

"Let's stop the bleeding," Biden said. "I think it's a moral imperative."

Many others have had similar suggestions.  New York Times columnist Nick Kristof, who has been reporting on Darfur, at great personal risk, for years, recently wrote about suggestions his readers sent him.  In a March 13 column, unfortunately behind the TimesSelect subscription curtain, Kristof wrote:

Six weeks ago, I invited readers to send in their own suggestions for what we should do about Darfur, and the result was a deluge of proposals from all over the world.

The common thread was a far more muscular approach. Several readers suggested that we should dispatch a private force -- supplied by a military contractor like Blackwater USA -- to fight the janjaweed militia.

Many readers also recommended that we supply arms to Darfur refugees or rebel groups. Some people suggested that we blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan exports oil.

Kristof, whose opinions on this subject deserve profound respect, does not think any of these "far more muscular" approaches would be helpful.  And, by inference, he would probably think the same of Senator Biden's recent proposal.  Again, from his March 13 column:

After inviting the discussion, I feel ungrateful in criticizing such well-meaning suggestions -- but I'm afraid that in the aftermath of the Iraq war, aggressive military measures would be counterproductive. We would be handing President Omar al-Bashir a propaganda victory and a chance to rally support (''Those American crusaders are trying to steal another Arab country's oil!'').

Likewise, Darfur is already awash with guns and irresponsible armed factions terrorizing civilians. The last thing Darfur needs is more AK-47s.

Ok.  After first hearing about it, I was ready to strongly push Biden's proposal, but Kristof's words have reminded me of the vast complications of that approach.  Bush's Iraq War is tragic in so many ways, but one of the worst ways is that is has helped tie our hands in dealing with the Darfur massacres.

So what is Kristof's preferred approach?  I already know, based on Ruth Messinger's words a few weeks ago, that Kristof supports the divestment campaign.  And he has some other suggestions in his March 13 column:

[W]hat Darfur needs isn't a single dramatic solution but a collection of incremental steps that add to the pressure for a peace agreement there.

President Bush could ratchet up the pressure by giving a prime-time speech on Darfur. He and Tony Blair could lead a summit on Darfur in Europe. He could invite leaders of China and Egypt to join him on a trip to a Darfur refugee camp in Chad.

Mr. Bush is expected to announce soon a series of financial sanctions on Sudan (similar to those that have inflicted considerable pain on North Korea and Iran), and those are welcome. Enforcing a no-fly zone would also help add to the pressure.

But the top priority for Darfur is something that few people talk about -- a negotiated peace agreement. Peacekeepers are desperately needed, but the only real hope for lasting security is a negotiated peace among all the tribes of Darfur. And that is conceivable: an attempt last April came close, but ultimately a flawed deal was reached that made the conflict worse.

Unfortunately, in the month since this column was written, nothing of the sort he proposes has actually happened.  No Bush prime-time speech on Darfur.  No Bush-Blair summit on Darfur.  Do Bush-China-Egypt joint trip fo a refugee camp.  And the proposed sanctions are not yet in place, either, much less a no-fly zone. 

Obviously, there is also no peace agreement.

In that context, perhaps Biden isn't so far off base.  How much longer will the killing go on?

Join the Sudan divestment campaign to help save Darfur

Last night, friends invited us to attend a meeting of the San Antonio Interfaith Darfur Coalition, a group working to bring attention to the horrific situation in the Darfur region of western Sudan in north central Africa.

The speaker was Ruth Messinger, president of the American Jewish World Service, who was introduced by a local rabbi as one of the primary two people (along with columnist Nick Kristof of the New York Times) bringing attention to Darfur in the U.S.  Messinger spoke of the genocidal situation, but also about what we can and must do now to help.  And that is "divestment"--ensuring that none of our money goes to support the murderous regime in Khartoum.

Here is an excerpt from a Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial on February 14 describing the divestment campaign in the Texas legislature:

For state Reps. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, and Phil King, R-Weatherford, to collaborate on a bill in the Texas Legislature, it must be a worthy issue. The continuing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan meets the criteria.

Bipartisan bills -- SB247/HB667 -- call for the targeted divestment of Texas pension funds in companies that do business with the Sudanese government. If the leaders of the North African nation won't listen to reason, perhaps they'll respond to pressure from those who wish to do business with them.

...

Given that world opinion doesn't seem to matter [to the Sudanese government], the Sudan Divestment Task Force, a project of the Genocide Intervention Network, came up with a different idea: Hit the intransigent leaders in the place that hurts all politicians -- the wallet.

Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, wrote the bill in the Texas Senate. Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, R-Houston, worked up the House bill with four joint authors.

Similar legislation has been adopted in six states. Efforts are under way to pass it in 20 others.

For more information on the San Antonio Interfaith Darfur Coalition, see their new blog at saidc.blogspot.com.  For more information of the divestment campaign, wherever you may be, see sudandivestment.org.