How Obama Would Respond to Darfur

In last night's Presidential debate, Barack Obama offered the outlines of an Obama Doctrine, of when he would intervene in a humanitarian crisis. He said the following:

"So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies."

The Obama Doctrine seems to say that the United States has a moral obligation to respond, but a measured moral obligation - idealism tempered by realpolitick.  Hence the emphasis on working in partnership with others.  As far back as 2004 he warned against putting US forces on the ground, saying: “There is no question that the United States military is currently spread thin with our earlier commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Besides the importance of working with allies, he mentioned two specific steps he would take.  First, providing logistical support to the existing UN peacekeeping force, and second imposing a no-fly zone.

Obama has consistently advocated this sort of measured approach since the beginning of the crisis. (Unlike, say, Joe Biden, who has in the past advocated for direct US intervention.)  In 2004, Obama called for sanctions against Sudan’s leaders and oil industry, as well as US logistical support for a peacekeeping force. He reiterated both the need for sanctions (in conjunction with the EU) and the importance of US support for UN peacekeepers in a November 2007 interview with Save Darfur.

He recently took a strong line against President Bush’s negotiations with Sudan to remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. According to Obama: “This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments.” He has also spoken in favor of divestment.

Though he spoke in favor of a no-fly zone last night, his other recent comments have been somewhat more ambiguous.  He was the co-sponsor of a 2006 bill supporting a no-fly zone, and then again called for a no-fly zone in a May 2007 statement. Yet he was more hesitant in November 2007, saying that as some NGOs oppose a no-fly zone, he would have to evaluate the pros and cons before making a decision. Similarly, while the Darfur section of his website used to call for a no-fly zone, there is now no such mention.

The Genocide Intervention Network, which grades all Congressmen on their support for Darfur issues, gave Obama an A in 2007 and an A plus in 2006. According to the report: “Barack Obama has received a cumulative grade of ‘A+’ for supporting and voting in favor of all significant Darfur legislation. This member of Congress is a champion of the cause and has taken crucial action to end the genocide in Darfur.”

To see the video of Barack Obama describing his position to Save Darfur, click here.