Dumping Darfur

Eddie Beaver has written a harsh indictment of the Bush administration for what he calls dumping Darfur.

It is high time that Americans get involved and raise hell over the genocide, the White House’s betrayal of those being exterminated and the lack of bold, strong leadership on Darfur from a president who has until now embodied those traits. No lesser an authority on America’s greatness and nobility than founding father Alexander Hamilton reminds us today through his writing; “It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race."

His frustration stems in part from the administration's blocking of the Darfur Accountabilty Act of 2005, already passed unanimously by the US Senate. Beaver is not alone in his frustration. The American Prospect's Mark Goldberg writes,

The administration's assault on the Darfur Accountability Act reveals its belief that further coercion aimed at forcing the Sudanese regime to stop the killing is simply not productive. Prendergast says that the Bush administration seems to feel the need to constantly remind Khartoum that congressional pressure is not reflective of the White House position on Sudan. Now, with the attempt to scrap the act, the Bush administration is sending that message very clearly on a daily basis.

All the while, Darfur is burning by the hand of the Khartoum regime.

Why is the administration backing off? Because "the U.S. has quietly forged a close intelligence partnership with Sudan," according to Democracy Now. Whatever happened to, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists?" I'm all for realism in foreign affairs, and understand that sometimes this country will have to work with less than ideal friends, but we must draw a line somewhere, and I think mass murder is well over that line. Beaver argues that the intelligence gain from Sudan is not even all that great, describing the calculations of CIA and the State department as "absurdly idiotic."

Ironically, the administration's calculations could well backfire and create a wedge between the president and his most committed supporters, the religious right. Beaver writes

Political realities within America could act to threaten this budding relationship between the leader of the free world and an Islamic regime committing genocide and creating terrorists. Indeed, the White House’s luck with the hapless Democrats may run out over Darfur. Eventually, perhaps sooner than later, Democrats will look back at how they and their Republican allies shamed Clinton into action over Bosnia, or even how Clinton himself used inaction in Bosnia as a weapon against Father Bush on foreign policy in 1992. They will begin pressing Pres. Bush on the issue, echoing calls of outrage from Christian conservatives and other Republicans who have demanded US action on Darfur that consists of more than feeding hungry people so they can be slaughtered on a full stomach by jihadist militiamen and Sudanese soldiers. Pres. Bush is managing to make America look shameless, callous and foolish all at once in regards to Darfur, not much of an improvement over the UN, EU and AU in this dispute, but a state of affairs Americans, both hawks and doves, will not allow to stand for very long.

This is one of those rare issues which prompt cooperation across the political spectrum, and with the evangelical community's expanded vision for itself, the right-wing demand for action could become deafening.

The president needs to decide what exactly he stands for, and what the nation under his governance stands for. He says he stands for the sanctity of life, once proclaiming

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2002, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to reflect upon the sanctity of human life. Let us recognize the day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship, rededicate ourselves to compassionate service on behalf of the weak and defenseless, and reaffirm our commitment to respect the life and dignity of every human being.

(emphasis mine) Are these empty words, little more than posturing for political advantage? Or do they represent the convictions of his heart? If the latter, the president must show the leadership that comes with such conviction.