ANALYSIS: Obama vs. McCain on Darfur

(This is the seventh in a series of papers analyzing the global and foreign policy views of the “presumptive presidential nominees” and how each candidate may govern as our nation’s next president.)

Since fighting erupted in Darfur in 2003, an estimated 450,000 people have died due to violence or disease, and 2.5 million have been displaced to Chad and neighboring areas. Although the Bush administration has labeled the crisis “genocide,” international legislative bodies are criticizing President Bush’s stalled actions to aid peacekeeping efforts by the United Nations and UNAMID.

As the final months of the 08’ Election season are approaching, an informed electorate needs to know what positions the two candidates hold on the issues in Sudan. How do their plans, stances, and experiences differ? And what actions will the next president need to take?

In September 2006, Senator John McCain wrote a piece with former Senator Bob Dole expressing the need for action on the matter. He acknowledged the potential for further violence, stating “All the warnings have been issued, including one from the United Nations that the coming weeks may see ‘a man-made catastrophe of an unprecedented scale.’” However, he expressed apprehension on what should be done, and “whether the United States and other nations will act now to prevent a tragedy, or merely express sorrow and act later to deal with its aftermath.” McCain has argued for intensified efforts to persuade the United Nations to commit troops and funds in the Darfur region, prosecuting the Sudanese government in the International Criminal Court, and increasing international pressure on countries that are friendly to the repressive regime.

However, McCain has done nothing legislatively to enact these policies. The congressional watchdog organization Darfur Scores has given Senator McCain a “C” for 2007. While voting for many initiatives to encourage progress in Darfur, he has not taken a leadership role, co-sponsoring only one bill enforcing the No-Fly Zone.

McCain’s recent interview with the Save Darfur Coalition underscores his stance on the issue. “…I believe America has the obligation to lead, to act, and I am gratified by organizations all over America, young people all over America, who have acted to go to our government and other governments to act to stop this genocide."

He has declared that, “Africa continues to offer the most compelling case for humanitarian intervention. With respect to the Darfur region of Sudan, I fear that the United States is once again repeating the mistakes it made in Bosnia and Rwanda…The genocide in Darfur demands U.S. leadership. My administration will consider the use of all elements of American power to stop the outrageous acts of human destruction that have unfolded there.” On the whole, McCain's outlook containsed noble goals but very little concrete action.  While some citizens may consider this approach necessary for a future Commander in Chief, the complex humanitarian situation in Darfur continues to demand American attention.

Senator Barack Obama on the other hand, has been a prominent voice urging the Bush Administration to take stronger steps to end the genocide in Sudan. According to his website, “Obama believes the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide, including by imposing much tougher sanctions that target Sudan’s oil revenue, implementing and helping to enforce a no-fly zone, and engaging in more intense, effective diplomacy to develop a political roadmap to peace. The international community must, over the Sudanese regime’s protests, deploy a large, capable U.N.-led and U.N.-funded force with a robust enforcement mandate to stop the killings.”

Legislatively, Senator Obama was given an “A” by Darfur Scores, co-sponsoring six bills, promoting accountability, civilian protection, divestment, and pressure on China. Like McCain, Obama has made legislation on the No-Fly Zone a priority, co-sponsoring and voting for its enactment. Obama has also worked with Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas to pass the recent Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and co-sponsored the Menendez Amendment for U.N. peacekeeping in Darfur in 2006.  He also worked with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to secure $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission.

Recently, Senator Obama was one of forty-two co-sponsors to sign an urgent Congressional letter to President Bush demanding immediate action. Similarly, Obama recently spoke out against President Bush’s decision to negotiate with Sudanese President Bashir to discuss removing the Government of Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in exchange for allowing Thai and Nepalese troops to join the UNAMID peacekeeping force in Darfur. Obama specifically detailed his belief that “no country should be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism for any reason other than the existence of verifiable proof that the government in question does not support terrorist organizations.” He was adamant that U.S. leadership hold the Government of Sudan accountable for its promises to let U.N. peacekeepers operate free of obstruction, uphold the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and account for the murder of John Granville, the American citizen and USAID official gunned down on New Year’s Eve. Obama wrote, “This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments…To suddenly offer to normalize relations before change takes place, particularly without close consultation with Congress, makes no sense. Before we improve our relationship with the Government of Sudan, conditions must improve for the Sudanese people. We cannot stand down – we must continue to stand up for peace and human rights.”

In his interview with the Save Darfur Coalition, Senator Obama summarized his beliefs on Darfur and intentions as President, saying, “The United States has a moral obligation, anytime you see humanitarian catastrophes. We are the most powerful nation on earth, we have the most stake in creating an order in the world that is stable, in which people have hope and opportunity. And when you see a genocide, whether it’s in Rwanda, or Bosnia, or in Darfur, that’s a stain on all of us, that’s a stain on our souls."

Darfur is considered the first genocide of the 21st century, and like so many incidents before it, how America responds will determine our place in history. For the next American president, understanding the complex situation in Darfur requires more than idealism and reliance on rhetoric, it demands specific initiatives, a stern diplomatic will, and most of all, action. While Senator McCain is perceived as having foreign policy credentials that outweigh Senator Obama’s, as far as a concrete history of action in Sudan, McCain is clearly outmatched. Wisdom and experience are meaningless without engagement and results. Based on his experience, knowledge, and specificity of direction,

Senator Barack Obama has a firmer grip on the conditions of the Sudanese people and action desperately needed to make the end of genocide in Darfur a reality.