“Until he reached the White House, Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that the United States apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere. Yet, as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness,” Nicholas D. Kristof writes in the New York Times .
Memo to Mr. Obama: When a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it’s time to review your policy.
Nearly all observers have seen the corruption in the recent Sudanese elections—and “yet Mr. Obama’s special envoy for Sudan, Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, pre-emptively defended the elections, saying they would be ‘as free and as fair as possible.’”
It’s true that the more genocidal aspects of the attacks in Darfur, the western portions of Sudan, have mostly ceased. But why do we have to praise the regime for that?
The corrupt elections this spring are aiming at another purpose: Setting in place an ability to reject the results of the referendum in the south, scheduled for January. In celebrating the easing of the civil wars in the western part of Sudan, the Obama administration is helping arrange for the revival of the murderous civil wars in the south of the country.
The last time the country went through this, 2 million died, and many commented on the fact that Washington seemed more interested in the deaths of the Muslims in Dafur than it had been in the earlier deaths of Christians in the south. I’d hate to think the same dynamic is playing out again.
