The U.S. and Darfur: An African Perspective on the Obama Team
Published January 15, 2009 @ 05:20AM PT
A Ghanian news source posted an interested article on expected changes in U.S. - African relations under the incoming Obama Administration, given Obama's own positions as well as those of his national security team:
"Thus far, it is clear that President-elect Obama’s appointees who would lead formulation and implementation of United States’ policies towards Africa would need no sensitivity training; they are ready to hit the ground running, so to speak."
In anticipation of the policies of Ambassador to the UN-designate Susan Rice, whose confirmation hearings begin today, the article looks to Rice's harsh criticism of U.S. and international inaction on Darfur in a 2007 Congressional hearing:
"Looking back at the Congressional Hearing on June 8, 2007, it appears part of the remarks by Susan Rice can, today, form the basis for her Africa policy formulation as US ambassador to the UN. Focusing on hostilities in the Darfur region of Sudan, Susan Rice noted that United States’ action has not been robust, 'We have to use sanctions. We have to put pressure on China. We have to go to the UN with a robust plan and challenge China to veto it.'
Continuing her remarks at the Congressional Hearing, Susan Rice said, 'We have to provide the means for protection of civilians in Darfur; a watered down program of hybrid forces is not adequate.' The former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs stated, 'We need to let the Sudanese government know we are serious. We have to speak the language the Sudanese government will understand.'
Susan Rice shocked the large audience at the Congressional Hearing, chaired by Congressman Don Payne, when she asked, 'Why are we not doing the same thing we did in Bosnia ---targeted bombing of civilian installations. Why the double standard?' Finally, she asked, 'How many people have to die before the US and others get off it to do what is right?'"
As I write this, a report on NPR is speculating that Darfur will be a huge part of Rice's hearings today.
(I certainly can't speak for Ms. Rice, but I would like to think that she would want you to vote for a "peace surge" in Darfur.)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Hillary's Hearings: Who Knew Power Could Be So Smart?
-
Daily Darfur: Escape to Sunny Eritrea
-
Blog Chatter on Obama's Pick for Darfur Envoy
Comments (1)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michelle became involved in the anti-genocide cause at a young age, and has been involved in various activist endeavors, including the Teach Against Genocide pilot campaigns, ever since.
Susan Rice would like us to do the same thing in Darfur that we did in Bosnia? What we did in Bosnia was bomb the place using Uranium 238 bombs and bullets. It was the first time these nuclear weapons were used. President Clinton wanted to try them out I guess. Since then, they have been the weapons of choice in Iraq. Now she wants us to do the same thing in Darfur. I don't think that is going to SAVE the people of Darfur any more than it SAVED the Bosnians. They now have an environment polluted with Uranium, just like Iraq. What a way to SAVE a people! By poisoning them!
Posted by Wilma Ralls on 01/17/2009 @ 09:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.