Broken Promises on Darfur (by Jim Wallis)
One year ago, I worked with Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Commission and others to create Evangelicals for Darfur – an effort to bring evangelicals from across the spectrum together to urge President Bush to take strong action to stop the genocide in Darfur. We ran a national ad campaign and met on several occasions with high White House Africa staff. I wrote that they " assured us of the president's commitment on this issue, and readily agreed that much more needs to be done."
It's a year later, and not much has changed. Ceasefires are announced and then violated, peace talks between the Sudanese government and rebel groups begin and end, U.N. resolutions are passed – but the terror, rapes, and killing goon.
This week, Michael Abramowitz of The Washington Post wrote a long piece on how the U.S. Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions. His conclusion?
Many of those who have tracked the conflict over the years, including some in his own administration, say Bush has not matched his words with action, allowing initiatives to drop because of inertia or failure to follow up, while proving unable to mobilize either his bureaucracy or the international community.
He documents that, despite the president's strong passion, internal problems of a turnover of top administration staff on Darfur, covert and overt opposition by officials throughout the bureaucracy, and a lack of follow-through on decisions made have prevented stronger action.
Three international factors have also played a role:
Bush has complained privately that his hands are tied on Darfur because, with the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, he cannot be seen as "invading another Muslim country."
…
Some U.S. officials saw another reason for the reluctance to get involved: preserving a burgeoning intelligence relationship with Khartoum, which had begun sharing critical information about al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.
…
The Sudanese government has resisted cooperation at every step in the saga and has been shielded at the United Nations by China, its main international protector.
The biblical injunction we cited in our ad last year still calls us to "rescue those being led away to death." (Proverbs 24:11) The president should put his faith and commitment into action by demanding that the people who work for him stand up to China, press for strong and effective sanctions, and prioritize lives over intelligence information.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
One hopes that the 20 000 additional troops coming in will be able to better protect the civilians in the area. But diplomacy is a slow thing, and while sometimes you just have to say, "enough!" and act, this is probably not one of those times. Money is needed for the African Union and UN force, and we can pray that it will be forthcoming.
And I don't think that the U.S. needs to jeopardize its intelligence relationship with Sudan yet. Intelligence information, lest we forget, can save lives too.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 2, 2007 2:32 PM
No oil in Darfur. And if there's a Muslim country to be invaded, it will be one with oil. Like Iran
Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 4:17 PM
Three years ago, Talisman Energy, a Canadian oil company, sold its piece of the action in Sudan to a major Chinese oil company. This came about only after sustained protests by numerous Canadians and many Talisman shareholders.
Many of us joined the local Sudanese community in regularly picketing outside Talisman's HQ and attending shareholders' mtgs to raise our concerns about the company's contribution to the human rights disaster in Sudan. The negative publicity became such a headache to Talisman that, notwithstanding the CEO's insistence that the unrest there had nothing to do with it, the company finally sold out and left Sudan.
SPEAKING UP DOES MATTER! DON'T LET GO OF THIS ISSUE, JIM!!
Posted by: canucklehead | November 2, 2007 4:51 PM
Actually there is oil in Sudan, and China buys most of it. And it's also where Osama Bin Laden was before he went to Afghanistan/Pakistan after 9/11. Sudan, China, Iraq, Afghanistan,Russia, Myanmar,....Oh what a tangled web we weave....
Think it's not all connected? Wake up!
Posted by: Debbie | November 2, 2007 5:13 PM
The Canadians left, the Chinese came in, and this helped how?
Posted by: Cads | November 2, 2007 5:35 PM
The UN African peacekeepers have often sought more money and increased numbers and better supplies to protect people of Darfur. Why can't US help tem.I say support them and monitor them. Let's enable Africans to help solve this.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 8:30 PM
The UN African peacekeepers have often sought more money and increased numbers and better supplies to protect people of Darfur. Why can't US help tem.I say support them and monitor them. Let's enable Africans to help solve this.
Posted by: jonabark | November 2, 2007 8:30 PM
Needless to say, of course we weren't pleased with the gazillions Talisman made in selling to the Chinese prior to leaving Sudan. Nonetheless, it was very, very meaningful to the Canadian Sudanese community that so many concerned Canadians divested themselves of Talisman stock and relentlessly and effectively pressured the Cdn gov't which helped prompt Talisman to leave the country.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 2, 2007 8:43 PM
The U.S. has given more the $1 billion to the Darfur problem with no positive results. Jonabark, you're extremely naive to believe that additional monies will help the situation without troops being deployed, and that ain't going to happen without the U.N. getting seriously involved.
Posted by: Cads | November 3, 2007 1:44 AM
troops?!
i live in Sudan and the last thing they need here are more people with guns trying to solve problems of violence with more violence.
let's use more imagination!
let's use more love!
Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2007 1:53 AM
Love? Ok Mr. or Ms. Anonymous. Suits me fine. May you and Jackie DeShannon continue to believe. God bless you in your struggles.
Posted by: Cads | November 3, 2007 2:28 AM
It would be exceedingly unloving not to use violence to end the bloodshed in Darfur.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 3, 2007 1:23 PM
We've been trying to use bloodshed to end bloodshed for about 10,000 years now, and having a lot of fun doing it, too.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 3, 2007 1:45 PM
Nm Rod ,
At least your consistent , and I am trying to compliment you . Its good to see and helps understand your views . I admit I don't understand everything going on here , just seems very sad and evil appears to have its hold on this country . People are being killed off .
What do you suggest to be done ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 3, 2007 2:56 PM
Why can't US help tem.I say support them and monitor them. Let's enable Africans to help solve this.
Posted by: jonabark
You know that sounds exactly like what Bush says we are doing In Iraq . How much do you know about this region ? Because that sounded logical to many of us also in Iraq and looked what happened ?
Just asking , I don't know .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 3, 2007 2:59 PM
Dear Jim W,
You wrote compellingly a couple months ago about how the performance of the Bush White House compares to the promises made to Evangelical leaders early in his tenure. I posted question asking if/what the accountability/reporting mechanism was from the White House back to the group of leaders; and what the White House was saying about your critique.
I appreciate your posting on Darfur and work to keep it front and center. I also note the Evangelicals for Darfur website has not updated since the initial campaign. When leaders say, "We have come together and agreed on a course of action to achieve a particular outcome; and now we ask you mobilize and exert pressure.............." then I have a series of questions which are usually very unanswered.
What leaders have really come together? What is their true commitment to sustained action in unity? What mechanisms have they established with the (White House or whoever) for ongoing accountability? etc. etc.
When leaders are not being clear about these kinds of questions then it feels to me (righly or wrongly) that you are being played and unintentionally playing those you ask to mobilize.
All I really know about the ongoing strategy of Evangelicals for Darfur is the website; leading me to believe it was nothing but an original series of meetings and public campaign.
Please fill in the blanks.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 3, 2007 6:02 PM
Jim Wallis wrote:
It's a year later, and not much has changed. Ceasefires are announced and then violated, peace talks between the Sudanese government and rebel groups begin and end, U.N. resolutions are passed – but the terror, rapes, and killing goon. (sic)
(emphasis added)
What? Passing a UN resolution by itself wasn't enough?
Do you really mean to tell me that effective foreign policy sometimes requires the ability to use force?
Look, I understand your frustration over the failure to resolve Darfur, but this failure is a consequence of the "international community" and its overreliance on "soft power". If there were other nations in the west, besides the US and Britain, that had the capability to project force in places like Darfur, there might be peace in Darfur. Heck, the world in general would probably be more peaceful.
But Europe and Canada have largely disarmed themselves. With the US and Britain tied up in Iraq (wisely or unwisely -- that's a whole other argument) there's nobody left who can actually give a UN resolution any teeth.
There's a place for diplomacy, but in situations like Darfur there's no substitute for guns and tanks and bombs. You don't have to like it, but that's how the real world is.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 4, 2007 11:35 AM
There's a place for diplomacy, but in situations like Darfur there's no substitute for guns and tanks and bombs. You don't have to like it, but that's how the real world is.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine
Did not Biden support going in right away in one the first debates ? Anyway the fact that the media is getting pictures and the story out I believe is helping the stronger support for doing something . You may be right about all we do is diplomacy , but from what I have read it appears that diplomacy will not work unless there is military intervention from somewhere .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 4, 2007 1:44 PM
Just to let you know that it is Monday and prayers were offered today for our military personnel wherever they are in the world. That there will be victory in Iraq and that the world can find peace.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 5, 2007 7:57 AM
Because we have a great and powerful country in the US, there is this attitude and belief that all of the problems in the world can either be solved by the US or are the result of US action or inaction.
The reality is that the geo-political tragedy occuring in Darfur, and in many other parts of the world, have little to do with the US and maybe we need to begin to ask ourselves if this is our responsibility (as a nation, rather than a s individuals). I think of President Clinton's ignoring the slaughter in Rwanda and that he felt compelled to go back and say "sorry" that he did nothing about this.
I live in Saginaw, MI USA and we still have people in deep poverty and children shooting at each other and drug addicts and crime. It would be inane of me to believe that the US Government should step in here to stop these. Actually, as a citizen, following the current attitudes of people who see government's role as provider of everything, I should be yelling that "they" need to come in a fix this first!
I am growing weary of people who say others should do this or that and then expect others to pay a price (money, times, their life) that they are unwilling to pay themselves.
As a Christian, if God lays it on my heart to stand against an injustice or to help someone, then I need to do that, but I must be willing to pay that price first myself, lest I be the hypocrit.
I would be willing to go to my neighbor and say "would you like to donate" for a cause, but it is certainly far from Christian charity to go to that neighbor and say "you are required to give"...especially if I was not required to give.
How many of the head-shakers who read this and say "the government needs to do something" has given money to funds to help in Darfur, have willingly paid additional taxes, have volunteered to go to Darfur to offer help?
During the last election, I remember Mrs. Kerry lamenting during a meetin about a lady who did not have enough money to buy prescriptions and that the "government" should buy them for her. I would have loved to ask Mrs. Kerry "why don't you buy them for her?".
No, we always want someone else to do the work God has called us to do. If you believe that this tragedy in Darfur is where God wants you to put your resources, then do so. Don't complain that others have not done as your have done!
Posted by: twpeck | November 5, 2007 12:14 PM
We all have to look to the bible "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." one must look at first century culture to understand, this is the begining of Democracy. With all these conflicts of corruption, the native people must believe in freedom! So much, that they would die for it as our founding fathers did! They must be willing to "lose there life for it" as we must be willing to lose our lifes to get it." As Jesus teaches us! Freedom comes at a price! As history teaches us, they must believe!
Posted by: Christopher | November 5, 2007 9:04 PM
Christopher,
Well our founding father's died for greed not freedom. Just a minor correction there. I am confused by what you said. Democracy began in Greece. The Holy Spirit movement of the first century church had nothing to do w/ democracy and everything to do w/ something completely different.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 6, 2007 9:36 PM
Bush said that "Not on my watch" but a year later it's still going on. His watch is almost over.
Posted by: Jeff Butler | November 9, 2007 12:19 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?