With even Iraq off our collective radar screen (or at least not a subject of intense debate), it is no wonder that the deplorable humanitarian crisis in Darfur gets more distressing, as if it were not distressing enough, with nary a mention by the candidates in our campaign.
The recalcitrant leadership of Sudan, the key military, financial and ideological oxygen provider to the sinister Junjaweed, remains impervious to international pressure, condemnation, sanctions, what have you. And China, one of Sudan's largest trading partners, remains too indifferent to its client's commission of the worst humanitarian disaster to befall Africa since the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. But the Chinese at least seem to be getting a message out of Hollywood, if not out of Washington. Steven Spielberg announced last month his intention to cease his artistic assistance to China's Olympic games ceremony because of China's continued support for Sudan. Kudos to Mr. Spielberg, who has done far more than Secretary of State Rice seems to have been able to do to capture Beijing's attention in the matter of Darfur.
That genocide has now claimed over 200,000 lives and has driven over 2.5 million impoverished refugees from their homes. And every day, the attacks on the poor, defenseless women and children of Darfur continue with malnutrition and disease taking an increasing toll on the refugees. Sudan's recent support of a thwarted Chadian rebel attack on Chad's government in order to encircle and deprive Darfur's defenders of a safe-haven further illustrates Sudan's international culpability in Darfur's deteriorating situation.
The U.S. is still trying to help the United Nations deploy a 25,000 peace keeping force in Darfur, but Khartoum continues to put obstacles in the path of the UN. At least the Bush administration is trying, but how far is it willing or able to go to get something tangible to happen before more lives or lost?
So at what point does Darfur merit attention in the presidential campaign? Neither the Obama or Clinton official websites prominently feature Darfur (although the Darfur Scorecard -- a non-partisan website -- grades each as strongly supportive of legislation to alleviate the crisis).
The key question is whether it is time to turn the spotlight on China and coax Beijing into taking stronger action against Sudan, such as limiting its oil trade and drying up its investments that prop up that regime. Cong. Frank Wolf (R.VA) wants to ban any U.S. government official from traveling to Beijing to attend the Games, including President Bush. Even the threat of such gestures on China will gain its attention since anything that could mar Beijing's triumphant staging of the Games will be greeted as a serious threat.
Encouraging the candidates to be more forceful against Beijing's role in Sudan while out on the campaign trail may help put needed pressure on China. The ultimate fate of Darfur's remaining innocent people may be determined in the coming months. If a UN peacekeeping force is deployed and if China ratchets down its support of Sudan, perhaps more human catastrophe can be averted. But if the UN force is prevented by Sudan from being deployed, and if China does not face growing international scrutiny, the people of Darfur will face a summer of terrible suffering.
Darfur may not be high on the list of concerns that Americans have, but the conscience of Americans dictate that the presidential candidates make it more of a campaign issue so as to help prevent further disaster in Darfur.
Loading comments…
Posted March 9, 2008 | 11:58 PM (EST)