Maybe Pragmatic, But Not Principled on Sudan

by Michelle . · 2010-03-12 09:46:00 UTC
Topics:

The first step in problem-solving is, obviously, understanding the source of the problem. Likewise, the protection of human rights requires an accurate understanding of where they are threatened, and by whom. As does a human rights-centered foreign policy.

Such is the message of the 2009 Human Rights Report, released yesterday by the U.S. State Department: "Principled pragmatism starts with an honest assessment of human rights conditions and whether violations are the result of deliberate government repression, governmental unwillingness or inability to confront the problems, or a combination of all three." But in one of the most egregious cases of multiple severe violations of human rights, the Obama administration's approach thus far is out of sync with the principles set forth in this document.

Sudan's chapter of the report is a laundry list of violations in nearly 20 categories. Over and over, the report states that "the Interim National Constitution prohibits 'X', but the government continues to ..." for abuses such as torture, detention, freedoms of expression and association, and so on; regarding the violence in Darfur, aerial bombardment, Janjaweed attacks against civilians, obstruction of humanitarian aid and peacekeeping efforts all "continue."

The report makes clear that the government has gone about its dirty business despite constitutions, laws, and peace processes -- so why is the American special envoy intent on rushing yet another Darfur peace process, yet another process that so far has all the hallmarks of horse trading between self-interested armed belligerents that actively exclude civil society, rather than abiding by the "principled pragmatism" supposedly central to the new U.S. foreign policy? Under the leadership of Special Envoy Scott Gration, the administration's engagement on Sudan has not only been largely silent or very belated in reaction to Khartoum's abuses, but at times also seemed almost apologetic for them.

This approach might be pragmatic, but it is far from principled -- nor will it contribute to building the foundations for sustainable peace, if it continues to ignore the root causes of the country's instability.

Photo credit: UN Photo/ Albert Gonzalez Farran.

Michelle . has been involved in various activist endeavors, including the Teach Against Genocide pilot campaigns.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Page in U.S.-China Relations Turning Toward Peace
NEXT STORY:
A letter from Bettina Siegel, "Pink Slime" petition creator

COMMENTS (3)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.