How Obama and McCain Would Respond to Darfur
Developments
During the second Presidential Debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked both candidates under what circumstances they would use “United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.” The responses by Barack Obama and John McCain shed light on how each of them would respond to a conflict like Darfur.
The question was timely. While international attention has been focused on other issues, the situation in Darfur has continued to deteriorate. According to the UN, there are now just over 4.5 million conflict-affected people in Darfur, including 2.5 million who have been forced to flee their homes. Over 200,000 people have been displaced this year alone. The past year has also seen a dramatic increase in attacks against aid agencies. Since January 2008, eleven humanitarian staff members have been killed, 155 abducted (including WFP-contracted drivers), 208 vehicles hijacked and 22 convoys attacked. These attacks make it increasingly difficult for humanitarian agencies to reach those most in need. Over the summer, the UN estimated that it had access to only 70% of those affected by the conflict.
In response to the continued violence, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently requested an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, on the charges of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Darfur.
Background
In May, both Barack Obama and John McCain signed a joint statement on Darfur, declaring that they “ stand united and demand that the genocide and violence in Darfur be brought to an end and that the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement] be fully implemented.”
Their responses during the second debate – as well as their previous statements regarding humanitarian crises – show there are both similarities and differences in how they would respond to Darfur.
Obama’s response to Brokaw’s question was telling. He said:
"So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies."
Though he spoke of both moral and real-politick interests, he did not advocate unilateral intervention. As far back as 2004 Obama warned against putting US forces on the ground in Darfur, saying: “There is no question that the United States military is currently spread thin with our earlier commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Besides the importance of working with allies, he mentioned two steps he would take to address the conflict in Darfur. First, providing logistical support to the existing UN peacekeeping force, and second imposing a no-fly zone. In the past, he has also called for sanctions against Sudan’s leaders and oil industry.
In addition, he recently took a strong line against President Bush’s negotiations with Sudan to remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. According to Obama: “This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments.” He has also spoken in favor of divestment.
Similarly, John McCain is also against a unilateral US intervention. In response to Brokaw’s question, he said that "we must do whatever we can to prevent genocide", but then went on to say that this response "has to be tempered with our ability to beneficially affect the situation."
Judging by the examples he used – the US interventions in Lebanon in the early 1980s and Somalia in the early 1990s – it seems that Senator McCain would be very hesitant to support a direct US military intervention in humanitarian crises.
During the debate, however, McCain did not discuss what specific actions he would take. To get a sense of how McCain might respond to Darfur, it's necessary to look at his statements over the past few years. In 2005, McCain wrote an opinion piece whichthat called for financial sanctions against Sudanese Government leaders, a NATO-led no-fly zone, working with the Arab League to put pressure on Sudan, and the use of US and allied intelligence assets “to record any atrocities that occur in Darfur so that future prosecutions can take place.”
At a speech in December 2007, McCain called on the US to put pressure on China and suggested creating a “League of Democracies” to address the issue, without specifying what, exactly, the league would do. That same month he also mentioned the possibility of US troops offering logistical support for UN peacekeepers. Most recently in August 2008 he recommended imposing a no-fly zone. He has not recently brought up sanctions or the use of US intelligence assets to “record” atrocities.
Analysis
The question of how Obama and McCain would respond to Darfur is critical for a number of reasons. First, on a moral level, their responses to Darfur are in effect a litmus test, on just what actions the United States would – and would not – take to prevent or respond to genocide. The many similarities between their respective positions, and in particular the fact that neither advocates a unilateral US intervention, shows that there are real limits to how far the United States will go.
Second, on a practical level, their responses give a sense of what a new administration would do to address the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, and Sudan more generally. Finally, they also indicate how an Obama or a McCain Presidency would respond to the next humanitarian crisis that occurs.
Michael Kleinman is Foreign Policy Digest’s Regional Editor for Africa.