It is Legacy Time for President Bush
Howard Salter
June 05, 2008
By Lisa Pan
In September 2001, when President Bush received a memo summarizing the Clinton administration´s inaction during the Rwanda genocide, he wrote in its margin, "Not on my watch." Now, almost eight years after penning these four resolute words, it is arguable whether his legacy on the Darfur genocide is substantially better than Clinton´s was on Rwanda.
But this month, when the United States´ turn to hold the presidency of the United Nations Security Council coincides with Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno-Ocampo´s meeting with the Security Council to discuss the results of a second wave of investigations in Darfur, President Bush is presented with a timely opportunity to cement his legacy before his term ends next January.
The Security Council referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC in March 2005. After two years of meticulous investigations, Moreno-Ocampo identified Sudanese humanitarian affairs minister Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb as key suspects on fifty-one counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He has issued arrest warrants for both men and has recently completed a second round of investigations.
Since it is now the U.S.´ turn to hold the presidency of the Security Council and set the Council agenda this month, the issue of international justice for Darfur, in terms of how to enforce existing warrants and proceed with the results of the new investigations, suddenly has a better-than-usual chance of becoming a priority. This is an opportunity from which the U.S. must not shy away under any circumstances. Moreover, with China consumed in trying to ensure a smooth Olympics, it is unlikely to veto any action against the genocide in Darfur at this time.
But at a time when the international community, including the U.S., has become increasingly critical of China for its inaction to stem the Darfur atrocities, President Bush´s record on taking action against the ongoing genocide remains decidedly mixed. And this begs the question: To what extent can the U.S. afford to hide behind the inaction of China?
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the following steps are needed:
First, if we openly denounce China´s inaction in Darfur, we must be seen to have done enough ourselves. We have not. U.S. Special Envoy to Darfur and the Sudan, Richard Williamson, maintains that although the situation in Darfur is dire, the U.S. is not without options. He continues to call for a greater U.S. commitment to ensure progress in targeting the individuals responsible for the worst abuses in Darfur.
Second, scapegoating China on this issue comes with an extremely unpleasant consequence. As China continues to gain political clout in the international community, hiding behind China´s policy decisions in Darfur gives China the lead in making key security decisions in this region of Africa. Given China´s human rights record, do we really want it to lead us in responding to a genocide and one of the world´s worst humanitarian crises?
With a President who has professed a strong commitment to ending the Darfur atrocities, and taken a leading role in making key security decisions for the 21st century, the United States can and must do more. Our friends at the ENOUGH Project and Save Darfur have created a clear framework for what very quickly needs to be done in Darfur:
1. Appoint a single, empowered mediator. One strong lead mediator must replace the dual AU and UN special envoys because a diffusion of responsibility leads to a diffusion of effectiveness. The single mediator must have substantial negotiation experience in Africa—preferably in Sudan— and must be supported by a full-time team.
2. Support the mediator with coordinated international leverage. A "Quartet" of countries with the most external leverage—China, France, the UK, and the U.S.—must work together to support the peace process and consult closely with regional states. The Quartet countries must dedicate full time staff to the region. The UN Security Council—driven by the Quartet— must impose consequences in the form of targeted sanctions on key individuals, a comprehensive arms embargo and additional support to the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the case of the U.S., Special Envoy Richard Williamson should have two full-time deputies working the Darfur and Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) issues as well as a field-based team with personnel in Khartoum, Chad and Juba.
3. Address the Darfur conflict in its local and national contexts. The peace process must address both the local and national issues that underlie the conflict, ensuring that resolution of the conflict in Darfur complements full implementation of the CPA that ended the conflict in southern Sudan and that provides a blueprint for the democratic transformation of the entire country.
There is still time for President Bush to hold himself to his words, but by anyone´s count, it´s not very much.
In September 2001, when President Bush received a memo summarizing the Clinton administration´s inaction during the Rwanda genocide, he wrote in its margin, "Not on my watch." Now, almost eight years after penning these four resolute words, it is arguable whether his legacy on the Darfur genocide is substantially better than Clinton´s was on Rwanda.
But this month, when the United States´ turn to hold the presidency of the United Nations Security Council coincides with Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno-Ocampo´s meeting with the Security Council to discuss the results of a second wave of investigations in Darfur, President Bush is presented with a timely opportunity to cement his legacy before his term ends next January.
The Security Council referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC in March 2005. After two years of meticulous investigations, Moreno-Ocampo identified Sudanese humanitarian affairs minister Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb as key suspects on fifty-one counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He has issued arrest warrants for both men and has recently completed a second round of investigations.
Since it is now the U.S.´ turn to hold the presidency of the Security Council and set the Council agenda this month, the issue of international justice for Darfur, in terms of how to enforce existing warrants and proceed with the results of the new investigations, suddenly has a better-than-usual chance of becoming a priority. This is an opportunity from which the U.S. must not shy away under any circumstances. Moreover, with China consumed in trying to ensure a smooth Olympics, it is unlikely to veto any action against the genocide in Darfur at this time.
But at a time when the international community, including the U.S., has become increasingly critical of China for its inaction to stem the Darfur atrocities, President Bush´s record on taking action against the ongoing genocide remains decidedly mixed. And this begs the question: To what extent can the U.S. afford to hide behind the inaction of China?
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the following steps are needed:
First, if we openly denounce China´s inaction in Darfur, we must be seen to have done enough ourselves. We have not. U.S. Special Envoy to Darfur and the Sudan, Richard Williamson, maintains that although the situation in Darfur is dire, the U.S. is not without options. He continues to call for a greater U.S. commitment to ensure progress in targeting the individuals responsible for the worst abuses in Darfur.
Second, scapegoating China on this issue comes with an extremely unpleasant consequence. As China continues to gain political clout in the international community, hiding behind China´s policy decisions in Darfur gives China the lead in making key security decisions in this region of Africa. Given China´s human rights record, do we really want it to lead us in responding to a genocide and one of the world´s worst humanitarian crises?
With a President who has professed a strong commitment to ending the Darfur atrocities, and taken a leading role in making key security decisions for the 21st century, the United States can and must do more. Our friends at the ENOUGH Project and Save Darfur have created a clear framework for what very quickly needs to be done in Darfur:
1. Appoint a single, empowered mediator. One strong lead mediator must replace the dual AU and UN special envoys because a diffusion of responsibility leads to a diffusion of effectiveness. The single mediator must have substantial negotiation experience in Africa—preferably in Sudan— and must be supported by a full-time team.
2. Support the mediator with coordinated international leverage. A "Quartet" of countries with the most external leverage—China, France, the UK, and the U.S.—must work together to support the peace process and consult closely with regional states. The Quartet countries must dedicate full time staff to the region. The UN Security Council—driven by the Quartet— must impose consequences in the form of targeted sanctions on key individuals, a comprehensive arms embargo and additional support to the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the case of the U.S., Special Envoy Richard Williamson should have two full-time deputies working the Darfur and Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) issues as well as a field-based team with personnel in Khartoum, Chad and Juba.
3. Address the Darfur conflict in its local and national contexts. The peace process must address both the local and national issues that underlie the conflict, ensuring that resolution of the conflict in Darfur complements full implementation of the CPA that ended the conflict in southern Sudan and that provides a blueprint for the democratic transformation of the entire country.
There is still time for President Bush to hold himself to his words, but by anyone´s count, it´s not very much.
Print
Email
