You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa Horn
Sudan's Leaders Brace for U.S. Shift
2008-12-09
If the election of Barack Obama has been greeted with glee across much of Africa, there is at least one spot where the mood is decidedly different.

In the Sudanese capital of Khartoum these days, political elites are bracing for what they expect will be a major shift in U.S. policy toward a government the United States has blamed for orchestrating a violent campaign against civilians in the western Darfur region.

"Compared to the Republicans, the Democrats, I think they are hawks," said Ghazi Suleiman, a human rights lawyer and member of the Southern People's Liberation Movement, which has a fragile power-sharing agreement with the ruling party. "I know Obama's appointees. And I know their policy towards Sudan. Everybody here knows it. The policy is very aggressive and very harsh. I think we really will miss the judgments of George W. Bush."

While the Bush administration most recently advocated the idea of "normalizing" relations with Sudan as a carrot approach to ending a crisis it labeled a genocide, Obama's foreign policy appointees have pushed for sticks.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the nominee for secretary of state, has called for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to "blanket" Darfur in order to prevent Sudanese bombing of villages. The appointee for U.N. ambassador, Susan E. Rice -- a key Africa adviser to the Clinton administration during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, when President Bill Clinton was sharply criticized for failing to act -- has pushed for U.S. or NATO airstrikes and a naval blockade of Sudan's major port to prevent lucrative oil exports. Rice has vowed to "go down in flames" advocating tough measures.

Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was chosen for his foreign policy experience and pressed early for U.S. intervention to stop the fighting in the Balkans, was blunt during a hearing last year: "I would use American force now," he said.

But it remains unclear how those pre-election views will square with the president-elect, who has outlined a pragmatic, coalition-based approach to foreign policy, while also speaking of America's "moral obligation" in the face of humanitarian catastrophes of the sort that are plentiful in Africa.

Posted by:Fred

#5  Sudan was only ever a stick for the Democrats to whack GWB. Along with every other war, pestilence, famine and throbbing hangnail on the planet. The chances of The Changeling annoying China over Darfur when they can use the $US for a yo-yo are zero.
Posted by: Grunter   2008-12-09 16:15  

#4  Democrats seem to have the ability to go to war, or just bomb the crap out of people without getting a lot of friction for it. I don't know why, but they do seem to have that going for them, they only start 'righteous' wars.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-12-09 13:17  

#3  Coming to the conclusion that the democrats want their own "war to free the black people".

Economic Crises? check. Unilateral Option to War by Charismatic Leader? check. Reason to War Narrative? check. With Biden tutoring Obama and the Clinton redux making the decisions what could possbily go wrong...
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-12-09 12:47  

#2  But the liberal elites "feel their pain..."
Posted by: M. Murcek   2008-12-09 01:42  

#1  While the Bush administration most recently advocated the idea of "normalizing" relations with Sudan as a carrot approach to ending a crisis it labeled a genocide, Obama's foreign policy appointees have pushed for sticks.

Of course they're pushing for sticks. It's a long-festering 'humanitarian' issue in a backwater country with an impact affecting the U.S. national interest somewhere between the buildup of penguin guano in Antarctica and the decline in the number of pop-groups in Sweden.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-12-09 00:39  

00:00