Darfur Joins the "Never Again" List

By Shaan Sachdev

One of the most prominent humanitarian crises of this century briefly regained the spotlight this week when the Obama administration announced the details of its stance on the Sudanese government. It seems as though Obama will recognize Omar al-Bashir’s administration while advocating “a tougher approach”.

The genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur in 2003 remain an unresolved issue. The conflict still continues, embodied in sporadic violence, displacement, and starvation.

The conflict began on a relatively simple level—Darfur has always been divided between Islamic and African tribes. Khartoum’s continual neglect of Darfur only increased such divides.

Colonel Gaddafi of Libya’s decision to arm Islamic militias throughout North Africa (in an attempt to unify Muslims) incited violent conflict between Muslims and other Darfurian tribes that started in 1987 and continued onwards.

To quell what became a revolution, Omar al-Bashir’s administration sent in the Janjawiid and the genocide of Darfur followed. After 2004 the conflict complicated greatly as various rebel groups rose to power and the presence of aid organizations largely influenced the movement of tribes.

Why was there no effective international intervention? America was exhausted from the massive diplomatic effort extended in ending the war in south Sudan. France was too busy preserving stability in Chad. Russia did not want to instigate an arms ban on Sudan (to whom they sold plenty of MiG’s each year) and China was not keen on banning Sudanese oil exports (for equally obvious reasons). The burden thus went to the African Union, who were ill-equipped and whose mandate didn’t allow the use of force.

Six years later, after the International Criminal Court has repeatedly called for the indictment of Omar al-Bashir due to his committal of war crimes and genocide, Barack Obama’s newly-established stance on Sudan may indicate the extent to which America is willing to intervene in international crises that actually exist.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both failed miserably in preventing humanitarian crises (at least on time), contradicting America’s constantly-repeated pledge to ensure no repeat of the Holocaust.

Barack Obama has already been accused of being too soft in his approach toward international relations. There are differences, however, between effective diplomacy and the legitimization of war criminals. The decision to negotiate with Ahmadinejad of Iran may hold validity because, despite his fraudulent election and oppressive tendencies, he has not killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and he is not a war criminal.

The tired analogies to Hitler and Milosevic and Pol Pot seem almost useless at this point because however pertinent it may have been to maintain stability in Germany, Yugoslavia, or Cambodia, the prospect of diplomatic relations with such criminals today seems outrageous.

Yet Omar al-Bashir, who has been accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, accompanied by pretty damning evidence, has not been entirely dismissed by the “leaders of the free world”. Instead, they have decided to be a little stricter.

Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., says that “Engagement is not a reward. To definitively end the killing and dying ultimately requires a solution the government is willing to implement. There’s no way around it.”

Some argue that this has not been America’s policy in the past. Some argue that Obama’s position as president of the world’s most powerful country would allow him to pressure the Security Council into cornering Khartoum until al-Bashir relinquishes power.

With a state department unwilling to release specific information on how the United States plans to be harder on Sudan, might Obama be heading in the same direction as his genocide-friendly predecessors?

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.