QandO
Questions and Observations| « Steyn Speaks | Main | The answer, my friend, is blowing in the Wind » |
|
September 06, 2004 Sudan and the Election At the risk of being crass and heartless, allow me to suggest that John Kerry could make very serious electoral progress by simply politicizing genocide. Really. The conditions in Sudan--genocide, by any definition but that of the United Nations--have been underreported in the past few years. While the United States has been more vocal and "concerned" than our colleagues in the UN, nobody has actually, you know, done anything about it. Sudan has remained a "problem" that requires "action"....though, apparently, not yet. Think back a decade, when the largely ignored Rwanda crisis became a massacre, about which Bill Clinton eventually said "We in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred in Rwanda in 1994". Think back to the relatively popular, low human-cost, humanitarian interventions during the Clinton administration. Yugoslavia and Haiti, for example. Think back to the past few years, when the Bush administration has made much headway--and blunted much criticism--by proclaiming the humanitarian virtues of our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly, there is an emotional case to be made for humanitarian intervention, and it plays well with voters. Yet, despite a burgeoning crisis in Sudan, there's a great deal of inaction from the Bush administration, and no campaign promises for action. The President is "deeply concerned". He "condemn[s] these atrocities" and "expresse[s] [his] views directly to President Bashir of Sudan". The good intentions are a mile long. The action are an inch deep. The room for John Kerry to make a move to own this issue is wide open. Indeed, John Kerry seems to be aware of the issue, having already called on Bush to do something. "Demonstrate this kind of leadership" as he called it, referencing "Bosnia and Kosovo"...presumably, a call for some limited military intervention, with or without UN approval. In fact, just days ago, John Kerry released a statement calling on Bush to intervene miliitarily.
Note, please, that although early in the press release he concedes that "Many governments want to evade the issue", his demand for US troop deployment seems to assume cooperation from the United Nations Security Council. Cooperation of exactly the sort that he assumed with regards to the Iraq war, and failed to criticize when it did not come. Well, he failed to criticize the uncooperative nations. He didn't hesitate to criticize Bush, who "lead the UN to do the right thing and to put the full weight of the U.S. behind halting" the problems in Iraq. But that's an inconsistency for another day. In the meantime, there's still this Sudan political opening, and--again, at the risk of crass political calculation--I suspect Kerry could exploit it for electoral gain between now and November, by incorporating the following elements....
Indeed, the door seems wide open for Kerry to challenge Bush in a military arena, without necessarily losing the anti-interventionist faction on the left. One wonders if Kerry will hit back in these final two months with something productive and forward-thinking....or, otherwise.
|
Assuming Kerry acted as you suggest, he would have to answer a whole bunch of uncomfortable questions-
1. "If the UN Security Council won't support humanitarian intervention, should the the U.S. act to stop the genocide?"
2. "Our military forces are stretched thin. Can we make a long-term commitment to remain in Sudan?
etc.
I just don't see Kerry going strongly down this path. He would tie himself in knots trying to reconcile this attack with his own previous statements.
..........
Kerry would actually do better to strongly attack the UN (and ignore Bush) on this issue. He could make a compelling case for the multi-lateral approach that he favors, demonstrate that it's not a partisan issue, and reaffirm humaitarian amd leadership bona fides.
The fact that either form of attack would be of absolutely no benefit to the people of Sudan is besides the point. Heaven forbid, we should actually work together to accomplish something.
Posted by: pilsener at September 6, 2004 08:23 AM
1. "If the UN Security Council won't support humanitarian intervention, should the the U.S. act to stop the genocide?"His answer to that needs to be an unequivocal "yes". The only requirement is sufficient international support, as with the Kosovo intervention. I'm not sure he'd need to reconcile anything. His position is, and has been, that we need to pursue diplomatic resolutions first, rather than exclusively. In this case, his position is that we can do both simultaneously.
2. "Our military forces are stretched thin. Can we make a long-term commitment to remain in Sudan?I think he's already taken steps toward answering that by referencing other nations who can contribute. For one thing, it would require far fewer troops than an intervention like Iraq. For another, it would probably be easier to gin up sufficient international troops for Sudan.
Kerry would actually do better to strongly attack the UNHe does seem to be setting himself up to do that, so far. Oddly (not really), he doesn't seem to have any practical suggestions beyond "just do it".
Posted by: Jon Henke at September 6, 2004 08:36 AM
He has seen too many Nike commercials.
Posted by: Frank Castle at September 6, 2004 09:31 AM
I agree.
I think that with pullouts of troops in Europe and Asia, we could manage it. The goal would be to prevent the janjaweed/sudanese military from attacking. This wouldn't be a overtaking of the country in the same sense as Iraq with all the implicit problems.
Perhaps an enforced partition, establish a new border and defend it until the UN wakes and takes over.
Bush could do this and have several points in his favor over Kerry.
- acting in a humanitarian way. He could pull a number of moderates away from Kerry.
- accuse Kerry/EU/Koreans of hypocrisy by using EU and Asia deployed troops
And although doing this before the election is risky, I think it could be started. And Kerry would be left huffing and puffing.
I think, however, if Bush did it, the reaction from the left would be both comincal and predictable. OOOIIIILLL.
When you had the link from Oliver, I figured that it would be something juvenile. Oliver is regressing more every day. It must be all that interaction with Atrios and the other media doen't matter folks.
Posted by: capt joe at September 6, 2004 09:35 AM
Kerry might be able to score some points using the situation in the Sudan, but they would be few.
The reason? In my opinion, the vast majority of people in the U.S simply do not give a rats rear about Africa. As horrible as the situation is over there, I believe the majority of Americans see Africa as a lunatic asylum controlled by corrupt ignorant dictators and religious wacks, and truly believe that any effort to save the continent is the equivalent of throwing money down a bottomless pit, regardless of what caused the misery. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Bono may think it's wonderful, but most people, I believe, are just tired of hearing about how insane it is over there, and truly believe they simply have to work out their own problems. They simply don't see it as a worthwhile endeavor. I believe Kerry would also be seen as trying to paint Bush as a racist, which I'm sure would go over like a lead ballon. That, in essence, would be the equivalent of telling anybody who supports Bush that they also were racist. Doesn't sound like a winner to me. Again, just my opinion.
Posted by: Todd at September 6, 2004 10:14 AM
Kerry could never pull it off with all the inconsistencies it would expose. The UN wouldn't be there. If Kerry says nothing about the UN, he gets attacked. If he makes excuses for or denigrates the UN, its yet one more flip-flop. We couldn't get a coalition larger than that in Iraq and "bribed" etc would come back to haunt him. Imagine a coalition of mostly African countries; these would grander than UK, Italy, Poland, etc who Kerry has consistently dismissed. Those allies that secretly want him to win (most notably France and Germany) wouldn't be onboard and most realize that. This would be repeatedly thrown in his face. Where has Kerry been over the last two decades as millions have died in Sudan? Pushing this issue now would be all too transparent. The hypocrisy of the "humanitarian" angle not being sufficient for Iraq, but Sudan ....
Posted by: MaDr at September 6, 2004 10:30 AM
Actually, Kerry could damage himself. I think (boy stepping on a rickety bridge on this one...)
that the average American perceives we have our hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Couple that with the Dems bitching and moaning about "quagmires" and you have, perhaps, a demonstration that the Kerry campaign will say or do anything to win the election, including suddenly becoming war-hawks.
I would like to think the swing voters would see this for what it was.
Meanwhile, Bush can play the card by having the UN get involved, and I agree, I think on a low scale we could handle it even if they didn't.
If we can do some good at the same time, wow, what a concept...
Still, I'm sure even Mr. Kerry would agree that we ought to get UN help, nay, even seeking their approval for our efforts. That ought to take a couple of months while France decides if somehow our doing so would further impugn their alleged honor.
Posted by: looker at September 6, 2004 11:11 AM
Please, no, not another military adventure! Don't the US forces have enough to do in the world's hellholes already?
I think any casualties suffered in yet another optional war would not at all be appreciated by the American public. Especially since there is absolutely no link whatsoever with national security, the war on terror, or any national interest whatsoever.
I mean, if we are going to do this, let's just go all-out and go for regime change in Sudan, too. After all, the regime is involved in killing innocents by the bushel, so they probably deserve a good thrashing, and - who knows? - maybe they even have some tenuous links to terrorists and WMD. However, creating some UN-safe (unsafe?) havens, and essentially preserving the problem for another day is NOT an attractive option.
Posted by: Qoolalex at September 6, 2004 12:52 PM