|
By Shoshana Bryen
 WASHINGTON, D.C.—The July 2008 indictment of Sudan's Omar Bashir by the International Criminal Court includes three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder. He is accused of running the campaign in Darfur that killed (using the lowest estimate the Court deemed reliable) 35,000 people directly and 100,000 more by related causes, and turned more than 2.5 million people into refugees. He is supposed to be arrested upon arrival in signatory countries-although his trips to the Arab world and Iran had the air of victory laps.
President Obama's envoy to Sudan declared the genocide over. In June he said, "What we see is the remnant of genocide...the consequences of genocide...the results of genocide." In July, he told Congress he didn't think there was any evidence to support the continued designation of Sudan as a sponsor of terrorism. Last week he said economic sanctions, were hindering the United States in its attempts to provide aid to a different region of the country.
The President's envoy to the UN, on the other hand, has continued to call the situation in Darfur "genocide" and demand accountability of the Sudanese government.
The administration appears to have split the difference. The word "genocide" was not used in announcing a new policy in which the United States: will engage in talks with the Sudanese government-not Omar Bashir directly, only the people the dictator has put in place for the purpose; will not lift sanctions; will reconsider the "sponsor of terrorism" designation; and will offer the government unnamed "incentives" if the people of Darfur are no longer decimated by the government-sponsored Janjaweed militia. The opposite also applies, said UN Ambassador Susan Rice. "There will be no rewards for the status quo, no incentives without concrete and tangible progress. There will be significant consequences for parties that backslide or simply stand still."
All in all, it is a balanced and possibly, in this case, workable policy.
It is the approach the Obama Administration has taken to countries with which the United States has had poor relations: it does not matter whether their policies are to blame for those problems or our policies are to blame; whether they cheated on elections and killed regime opponents or we cheated on elections and killed regime opponents; whether they fund and support terrorist organizations in neighboring countries or we fund and support terrorist organizations in neighboring countries; whether they committed genocide or we committed genocide. The United States will find ways to work with whoever is in power in whatever county. Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, China, Syria and now Sudan. There is a clean slate that contains the possibility of good things and the possibility of bad things, depending on entirely on future behavior. Old accounts are closed.
As Americans, we are skeptical. As Jews, we are disgusted by the idea of letting genocidal maniacs draw a line behind their misdeeds and erase their crimes with a promise to behave in the future-or even actual better behavior in the future. Under the new system, the Nuremburg trials would have been unnecessary, and Simon Wiesenthal and the Klarsfelds would not have found a job.
Go to top of next column
|
|
**
The American Jewish community was way out in front on Darfur-calling it what it was, demanding that the U.S. government respond, working up public outrage, and raising money for relief. And we were good at it-the African Union provided forces that protected the refugee camps; the United States provided airlift and other logistical necessities as well as sanctions on the Sudanese government; aid organizations helped to feed and clothe the survivors. Finally, in 2008, the UN indicted Omar Bashir for genocide, war crimes and murder.
Odd, then, to read the reaction of Jewish "community leaders" to the Obama Administration's decision to offer Sudan "incentives" for future good behavior-coupled with the threat of increased sanctions for future misdeeds-and no penalty for the past. We cite the reporting of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency:
"It's a great first step forward," said the president of the American Jewish World Service.
"Exactly the right approach," said the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, "It sends a very clear message of continued U.S. attention and engagement, and exactly what is expected of them to improve the situation."
The department chair of Tikkun Olam at the Herzl/RMHA Upper School in Denver and founder of an international movement of high school students concerned with Darfur hedged a little. "It's great in theory...We're waiting to see how it's implemented. We need to see a lot more action."
The director of Jewish World Watch said, "We've heard policies, seen written statements, but at the end of the day the key is whether there's actual change on the ground. We're seeing a unified clear policy, but we need to be very cautious, and we need to hold the administration's feet to the fire."
We are talking genocide here-while it's nice of them to take a "wait and see" attitude about the future disposition of Darfur and its wretched survivors, is there no one among the "leaders" who believes there is a need for the arrest and trial of Omar Bashir and his henchmen? Has "Never Again" become "Only Until They Stop"?
JINSA has always believed the people of Darfur needed rescue by the international community-as we would have wanted the Jews rescued. In 2007, we asked:
If it was 1943, would we be content to have Red Cross ensure food package delivery to Auschwitz? (Never mind that oven over there.) Would we demand financial sanctions on Goering or Mengele? That's the level of proposal President Bush has put forward-and even that has no traction in the UN Security Council...
A "war strategy" might, in fact, be more effective and humane than a "peace strategy." The militias, with government assistance, are waging war against the people of Darfur and warriors-people authorized to use violence-are needed to protect the people and kill, yes kill, the perpetrators. There is no reason to believe anything less will stop the ravaging of an already ravaged people.
To the extent that the Jewish community could convince the UN that killing the killers is the fastest route to peace, the people of Darfur may yet have hope. To the extent that we wash our cars for Darfur we are fooling ourselves into believing we are relevant when the issue is genocide.
Or post-genocide.
|
|
