McCain: good for Darfur?

When it comes to Darfur, John McCain has a better approach than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama


The guardian


March 7, 2008




Philip Honour


In 2006, John McCain - now the Republican nominee for the US presidency - and Bob Dole (a former Republican presidential candidate) co-authored an article in the Washington Post calling on the international community to intervene over the "man-made catastrophe of an unprecedented scale" in Darfur

Their article compared the situation in Darfur (in 2006) to the atrocities committed in Bosnia, specifically to the massacre in Srebrenica, and it's clear that a McCain White House would reinforce American commitment to protection in Darfur rather than the Bush administration's vocabulary-led policy of rhetoric about "genocide"

As McCain takes a break between campaigning for the nomination and the presidential election itself, he would be wise to re-read his past comments on Darfur and to recommit to the implementation of a no-fly zone to halt the daily aerial bombardments that are carried out by Sudanese military aircraft as part of their battle with rebel factions in Darfur

If McCain publicly recommits to this idea, he could not only provide the high-profile support that is needed by the UN to seriously consider a resolution authorising a no-fly zone, but it could also reposition him as a potential candidate for independent voters and Democrats who are sick of the drawn-out nomination campaign and the bitchiness of its two leading lights

The prospect of John McCain as the next president and another four years of Republican rule is probably enough for any reader to seriously consider emigrating to Mars, but a Democratic president, whatever beliefs he or she holds about the disaster in Iraq, may well be tempted to intervene against Khartoum's continued assault on Darfur as a high-profile commitment to the use of military force and "liberal interventionism". Experts point to the choice made by both Democratic candidates to seek foreign policy advice from high-profile, long standing advocates of liberal interventionism in the shape of Samantha Power, Obama's foreign policy adviser, and Madeleine Albright, advising the Clinton camp

Hilary Clinton has also spoken publicly of her willingness to "work with Nato to take military action" if Sudan doesn't allow Unamid to deploy a fully-functional UN peacekeeping force. While Barack Obama has been quieter on the issue, he has been quoted as saying: "The US must ensure humanitarian intervention with or without the Sudanese government's permission and we should urge European governments who are not willing to send troops to Iraq to take on this mission."

Recommitment to liberal interventionism is important for both Clinton and Obama. While distancing themselves from Bush's misguided foreign policy, they need to be seen as ready to defend American interests in the face of "rogue" leaders and willing to use force to prevent acts of ethnic cleansing and to combat Islamic extremism

Using Darfur to make such a point would not only be dangerous for stability in the region and would do nothing to mend the anti-American feelings in Muslim countries but it would also endanger the lives of millions of civilians whose lives have already been turned upside down by the Darfur conflict. Such a move would never be supported by any activist, NGO or pressure group working to bring peace to the region

Recent events have shown the need for a no-fly zone is as pressing as ever in Darfur. It is likely that the UN's peacekeeping mission in Darfur will still not be fully deployed. It is also likely that Sudan will not have handed over indicted war criminals to the ICC and it is likely that thousands more people will have lost their lives or homes as the conflict rages on

The American public should think carefully about the pros and cons of a Democratic president with a mission to redefine America's position in the world but in need of a "successful" military intervention, versus a "moderate" Republican who may not revolutionise politics but will stabilise the growing humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Obviously Darfur is not the issue that will decide who becomes the next president but if it was and I was a US citizen, McCain would get my vote