Confronting Sudan
President Bush’s announcement of expanded sanctions against the Sudanese government for abuses in Darfur will likely receive an approving nod from candidates on both sides of the aisle seeking to succeed him. The candidates at various occasions have roundly condemned the Sudanese government and blasted the UN for inaction on ending the atrocities, as detailed in this CFR Crisis Guide. The Senate-candidates have already endorsed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which set out a framework of tough sanctions and revived diplomacy last year. Through their votes in Congress, many have spoken out in favor of enforcing a no-fly zone over Darfur as well.
But there are complications to such tough talk. For one, confronting UN Security Council inaction means leaning heavily on China, as CFR’s Lee Feinstein points out in a recent blog. Although it has lately pressed Khartoum to permit a token international peacekeeping presence, China has blocked tough measures proposed in the Council and takes a fundamentally different view from Washington on pressing rogue states. Note this excerpt from an AP report on Chinese African envoy Liu Guijin’s recent trip to the region, indicating a wide perception gulf over Darfur:
“I didn’t see a desperate scenario of people dying of hunger,” Liu said at a media briefing. Rather, he said, people in Darfur thanked him for the Chinese government’s help in building dams and providing water supply equipment.
For presidential candidates, particularly those occupying congressional seats, pressure will be mounting to link China with the Darfur crisis. In particular, it will be interesting to see the extent to which the candidates take up the call to connect the 2008 Beijing Olympics with Darfur, in terms of sanctions or censure.
Separately, the drive toward divesting from companies that do business in Sudan has already created some awkward moments for outspoken candidates. Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), as well as candidates Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards announced earlier this month they had divested in Sudan-related investments, some of which were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The investments were revealed after candidates filed obligatory financial disclosure statements. Voters will also be able to track their candidates’ commitment to Darfur through the newly introduced Sudan Divestment Authorization Act.
