As should be clear, I am an ardent supporter of America developing a strong Africa policy that will serve all sides but that will allow Africans to set the direction of policies, priorities, and the general approach. And I sure wish America had done something with regard to Darfur several years ago. It seems a bit late in the game now to expect the United States to be a big difference maker in that crisis now, though I still would like to see a more engaged US government. What I cannot get behind is advocating action in Darfur out of primarily political motivations, as Baron YoungSmith appears to be advocating at The New Republic blog “The Plank.” Why should Darfur be on Obama’s “to-do list”?
Here’s one reason: because Obama needs some clear-cut foreign-policy victories–and his odds of getting such a victory in Darfur (by negotiating a peace deal that guarantees the safety of Darfuris and allows the displaced among them to begin returning home) are better than his odds in so many other places. Yes, that sounds strange. Isn’t Darfur an intractable headache that has defied the good intentions of negotiators and politicians for years? Sort of. But next to the other international items Obama is taking on–Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to name a few–Darfur might well be a comparatively easy problem to solve.
This seems to me like bad reasoning on top of bad reasoning. President Obama’s administration should take on Darfur based on its own merits, not because it will yield political points, or for the love of God, because it will be “comparatively easy.” Dealing with Khartoum may be many things. “Easy” has never been one that springs quickly to mind.