Daily Darfur: Obama's Messy Political Calculus

As basic services break down in Darfur, following Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir's disastrous decision to expel the 13 largest humanitarian aid agencies, and mistrust between the people of Darfur and the regime in Khartoum reach new peaks, President Obama and his allies must conduct the most delicate of diplomatic balancing acts --- weighing the consequences of different courses of action, which will not only reverberate within Darfur, but throughout the world as well.

So the question is: How much are the lives of millions worth?

Don't Trust the Hand that (Starves and then Makes a Vain Attempt to) Feed You

The rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), which pulled out of peace talks in protest of the expulsions, is supporting the decision of some internally displaced persons (IDP) camps to refuse assistance from the government, arguing that the food and medicine offered by the regime cannot be trusted.

Mohammed Ahmed Abdallah, a physician and human rights advocate in Darfur, echoes this sentiment, in Michael Gerson's latest column in the Washington Post:

Bashir claims that his goal is to "Sudanize" the relief efforts, insisting that the international community can drop off supplies "at airports or seaports" so aid can be distributed by Sudan's regime. "They don't have the technical capacity or the know-how," Ahmed counters. "And even if they did, it wouldn't be accepted by the people." It is not realistic to expect the victims of Bashir's genocide to trust in Bashir's generosity. The same is true, Ahmed argues, of promised relief from the Arab Middle East. "Darfur will never trust Arab aid. Though they are also Muslims, they have never been helpful. People think such assistance is easily poisoned."

So not only is the Sudanese government unable to fill the aid gaps in Darfur, but any attempt to do so appears to be moving towards a standoff, of sorts, with the Darfuri people.

4.7 Million Darfuris are Dependent on Aid. You're the President of the United States --- What do you do?

According to Gerson, the U.S. and the international community thus "faces a decision": Do we take a soft-line with Bashir in hopes that aid groups are readmitted, or do we accept the short-term consequences likely to come from increased pressure on Sudan, but that also has the potential to break Bashir's death grip on the region?

It's a messy political calculus, any way you shake it--- either caving to Bashir's tactics in Darfur, which hold innocent lives hostage in a no-holds-barred international power struggle, and thus nearly guarantee that this upper-hand will be used again in the future, and to the detriment of millions, or (if you're President Obama, in particular) taking the risks that come with stepping into the ring.

If one thing is clear, it's that any attempt to deal with Bashir will not succeed with one foot in, and one out. The full "diplomatic toolkit" must be on the table, including the credible threat of military force. It's not a simple question of black-and-white moral certitude: Consequences on the ground in Darfur will be grave (though, they already are), and on the international political scene, Obama has to weigh the cost of further angering the Arab world at a time when his agendas in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine also hang in the lurch.

It's not a one-off --- it's a diplomatic package deal. So the decision comes down to: Are the lives of the millions current subjected to the whims of Bashir's genocidal regime worth not only the political cost of action, but the on-the-ground consequences as well?

Gerson concludes:

"Not every global humanitarian crisis justifies this kind of commitment, or else America would be endlessly overextended. But if genocide does not justify such action, it will never be justified. And we would lose the right to say, ‘Never again.'"

I'd argue that we've already lost the right to say "Never Again," but that does not lift our responsibility to answer the question, "What will we do, right here, right now?"

Other items of note...

In a video released yesterday, Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri told Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir that he should "repent," and that his regime is "reaping what it sowed," referring to the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants issued earlier this month.

Bust lest you think Mr. Zawahiri is a new recruit to the Save Darfur Coalition's email list:

"So will the Beshir regime take the path of Islam and jihad and abandon the political maneouvres, diplomatic ruses and international smooth-talking, which has not -- and will not -- bring anything other than disasters and tragedies?" Zawahiri said in the message, according to the US-based SITE Intelligence Group.

Two thoughts:

1. Based on Bashir's recent public comments, Zawahiri has an interested definition of "international smooth-talking." But diplomatic ruses, definitely.
2. The call for the Sudanese people to "make preparations... for a long guerrilla war" will bring less disaster and tragedy? (And can one really fight a guerilla war in the desert?)

Moral of the Story: Don't take political advice from terrorists.

And lastly, Bashir appears to be feeling good about his trip to Eritrea on Monday --- his first international venture since the issuance of the arrest warrants --- and is visiting Egypt today.

[Photo from AP: A worker explains a booklet for new arrivals of displaced Sudanese children, that is distributed by UNAMID peacekeepers at Zamzam refugee camp, out side the Darfur town of al-Fasher, Sudan, Monday, March 23, 2009.]