Today’s Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Obama and Darfur” misses the mark and perpetuates an unfortunate stereotype that we’re a partisan movement that was eager to criticize the Bush administration but reticent to do the same to President Obama.
The Journal writes that “the larger wonder is how [Monday's release of the policy review] can go down so smoothly with those in the human rights community who have championed Darfur and assailed the Bush administration for not doing enough. Instead, they are congratulating President Obama…”
Anyone who read our public response to the strategy release, as well as my blog post later that day would be clear on the fact that we did not congratulate the Obama administration. We were, without a doubt, pleased that the strategy review was finally completed and that it called for a balanced set of incentives and pressures to be used with the Government of Sudan. We had been calling for such a plan for months (and over 100,000 activists asked President Obama to take up our plan). Our brief criticism of the Bush Administration for pursuing normalization of relations with Sudan was due solely to a remark by then-Special Envoy Rich Williamson that the United States that led people to believe that the U.S. would be giving up that leverage without getting anything in return. To his credit, Williamson clarified his remarks during a hearing before Congress that the United States was not considering any such plan, and that normalization would only be considered if Khartoum fulfilled its commitments.
We were not then, nor are we now, against holding out the promise of engagement for the regime in Khartoum. If that is the best way to end the conflict in Darfur, fully implement the CPA, and ensure justice is done, then so be it. What we have consistently been against is normalization for nothing. The Sudan policy document states clearly that “assessments of progress and decisions regarding incentives and disincentives must…be based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground.”
To call our support for the policy review congratulatory is deeply misleading. We’re pleased that the review is out, that it contains strong words about the conditions in which incentives would be considered and efforts to build more multilateral disincentives to prod the Sudanese regime, but we realize they are just words. As our president Jerry Fowler stated on Monday morning , the success of the plan will depend on its implementation — in particular the personal leadership of President Obama. The policy won’t be worth the paper it’s written on if it’s not adhered to by Special Envoy Gration and other American interlocutors and if the President doesn’t make Sudan a higher priority on his agenda.
Finally, we take deep umbrage at the Journal’s reference to the movement as “less a moral cause than a partisan club.” The Save Darfur Coalition represents over 180 human rights, faith-based, and advocacy organizations (which in turn represent over 130 million individuals), and about the only thing in common among these organizations is their outrage at the situation in Darfur and throughout Sudan. The Coalition represents a wide range of disparate political views. The movement represents an even broader array of views. The Journal apparently disregards all the efforts on Sudan’s behalf that continue to be made by Republican leaders such as Congressman Frank Wolf, who said of the policy that “this…seems very positive. Seems [the Obama administration is] going to take a more balanced approach.”
One thing the Journal said is correct, however. Anyone CAN “put a ‘Save Darfur’ sticker on his bumper.’” How fortunate for the Coalition and the movement that so many, from so many different backgrounds and political affiliations, have chosen to do so.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition.
