Daily Darfur: "Wait! I'm not finished with my policy review yet!"

by Michelle

Published March 11, 2009 @ 04:42AM PT

The Obama Administration came out (ever so slightly) stronger against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, and the veritable post-ICC temper tantrum he's unleashing against displaced civilians in Darfur. Following a meeting  yesterday with Washington with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, President Obama finally spoke out against Khartoum's expulsion of 13 major aid agencies from Darfur. (Perhaps he got my letter.)

"It is not acceptable to put that many people's lives at risk," Mr Obama said. "We need to be able to get those humanitarian organisations back on the ground."

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice publicly urged the African Union, Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Conference to lean on Bashir to reverse the expulsion:

"If this decision stands, we can expect over a million people to be in immediate risk of losing their lives and the responsibility for that decision lies squarely with the government of Sudan," Rice told reporters.

Gordon Lubold writes in the Christian Science Monitor that Darfur may be the first test of the emerging "Obama Doctrine" on foreign policy and the role of the military:

"The administration is currently mulling over its options, which could include a role for the US military, says the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

‘I have no indications that they are going to be shy at looking at all the instruments of national power,' says the official. ‘There are areas that [the new administration] has been pretty vocal about in terms of wanting to address and resolve specific issues, and Sudan is probably the most prominent in Africa.'"

It is more than acceptable for the administration to carefully consider its overall approach to the conflict in Darfur --- definitely good to take the time to think things through before pulling out the big guns. But we are facing an acute and immediate crisis within the broader conflict, which needs a immediate response of the variety not yet seen from the US or its international allies.

Yes, good leadership requires thought and consultation, but it also requires swift and decisive action when faced with an imminent threat that occurs outside the timeline of your "policy review." A tepid response now comes off not as careful consideration, but as having dropped the ball --- and with it, the lives of millions.

For more on the administration's ongoing "policy review," watch this webcast from the ENOUGH Project, filmed earlier this week:

Canceling my vacation in Khartoum...

The US Embassy in Khartoum is allowing staff to leave the country, and issued a travel warning to European and Americans:

"Recent protests have featured sharp anti-Western rhetoric. There is a continuing possibility that ongoing protests may encourage violent action against Europeans and Americans."

The Embassy has received terrorist threats against Americans and Europeans in Sudan, but as Save Heleta writes, those threats are not just levied against Westerners within Sudan.

Heleta continues to criticize Arab states for their hypocrisy on Darfur, as they accuse the West and the ICC of being anti-Muslim while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Bashir's victims in Darfur are Muslim themselves:

"Interestingly, over the last six years, while the Sudanese Arab government and their militias ravaged Darfur, killing more than 200,000 people and displacing over 2 million, hardly anybody in the Arab and Muslim world objected.

It did not matter that the victims in Darfur were Muslims.

Even though millions of innocent Muslims have been oppressed in Darfur since 2003, the fact that they are the victims of an Arab regime in Khartoum seems to prevent the Arab and Muslim public and governments from even acknowledging the suffering and humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur.

Up to this day, not one Arab or Muslim leader has publicly criticized Sudan's actions and atrocities in Darfur."

Other items of note...

Qatar's foreign affairs minister announced that peace talks between Khartoum and Darfuri rebels will resume within the next three weeks.

UCLA law professor David Kaye writes in the LA Times that the need for US engagement (thought not necessarily joining) with the ICC is in sharp focus after the Bashi indictment

"Closer engagement also would allow the U.S. to help shape policy and legal developments in ways that meet its concerns. Today, we have little ability to influence the court's thinking. As a consequence, many basic principles of international law are being developed without U.S. input."