Politics is applesauce providing progressive political analysis since 2006

Larry Craig’s position on the genocide in Darfur.

Today I received an e-mail from a member of the Idaho for Darfur political action group. This individual took the time to contact Senator Craig to express her concerns, and received an e-mail in return. Craig’s position seems to be rather reasonable; there is nothing really to shout about contained in the letter. I do feel however, that it would be useful to post a copy of Craig’s response on this site. It’s important for those of us who reside in this state to be aware of the views of our representatives regarding important issues such as the tragic situation in Darfur.

The letter reads as follows:

Dear [removed for privacy]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Darfur, Sudan. I appreciated hearing from you and apologize for the delay in my response.

Many in the international community have called for the United Nations (U.N.) to intervene to help restore peace and stop the brutal killings taking place in Darfur. As you may know, the International Crisis Group has compared this situation to the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. Pressure on the Sudanese government has grown dramatically over the past few years, and while the situation remains critical, the region appears to be closer than ever to ending the horrific violence of its past.

Congress has taken action on behalf of Darfur in the past with the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. This law imposes sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; supports measures for the protection of civilians and humanitarian operations; and supports peace efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan. It also set six benchmarks for the government of Sudan to reach before the restrictions are lifted, including: resolving the crisis in Darfur; disarming the Janjaweed militia; adhering to U.N. Security Council resolutions; resolving the crisis in eastern Sudan; denying safe haven to the Lord’s Resistance Army; and implementing the peace agreement between northern and southern Sudan.

I also cosigned a letter last year to Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the League of Arab States, asking him to urge President Omar Hassan El-Bashir to halt Sudan’s military offensive in Darfur, withdraw Sudanese troops from the area, and facilitate the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to the region. The letter also asked the Secretary General to urge Arab League members to strongly encourage Khartoum to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706, which set out a plan to promote peace in Darfur.
In addition to congressional action, President Bush recently imposed sanctions on 30 businesses owned by the Sudanese government, one additional company, and three individuals; these sanctions prohibit business with the United States and U.S. citizens. These sanctions followed President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s failure to effectively quell ongoing violence despite his previous pledge to allow additional U.N. peacekeepers. President Bush has also directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to prepare a U.N. Security Council resolution for new international sanctions against the Sudanese government.

Despite setbacks by the Sudanese government, the U.S. continues to push for further cooperation between the Sudanese government and the international community. I believe continued U.S. efforts in the peacekeeping process will prove critical in achieving this goal. I will continue to support our country’s assistance for current operations in Sudan, which has totaled over $1 billion for the past two years, including an additional $518 million in the 2007 Iraq War Supplemental.

You specifically mentioned S.Res.203, which calls on China to exert its influence in the Sudan to help stop the violence occurring in Darfur. You will be pleased to know that this resolution passed the House by a unanimous vote; however, the Senate has not yet taken action on this resolution. I hope this resolution will move quickly through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so the full Senate will get the chance to vote on it.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
LARRY E. CRAIG
United States Senator

While this is not the most exciting blog post, I hope everyone living in Idaho will take the time to read this. We must continue to monitor the actions of our representatives in order to make sure that they are living up to their rhetoric. Senator Craig must be pressured to live up to the idealistic values he expresses in this letter. Failure to do so would be an injustice to those of us he represents, the country, and most importantly, to those refugees and victims of this seemingly endless, barbaric genocide.

The majority of the Iranian people reject terrorism.

A new poll finds that 7 out of 10 Iranians reject Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization Al Qaeda. The poll points out the fact that the Iranian people seemingly feel the same as the American people do about terrorism and its danger to their national stability. Here is an expert from an article reporting on the poll:

Seven in ten Iranians view international terrorism as an important threat to Iran’s vital interests including 56 percent who see it as a critical threat. Only 12 percent call it not important. Even more Iranians are concerned about terrorist attacks in their own country. Eighty-one percent call such attacks an important threat (66% critical).

American and Iranian concerns about the threat of terrorism are comparable in intensity. Ninety-five percent of Americans see terrorism as an important threat, including 68 percent who say it is a critical threat. Only 4 percent do not see terrorism as a threat. Ninety-five percent also view terrorist attacks in our country as an important threat.

Both Iranians and Americans have strongly negative views of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Three in four Iranians (74%) and more than nine in ten Americans (94%) view bin Laden unfavorably, including large majorities (68% and 89%, respectively) who view him very unfavorably. Only 10 percent of Iranians look at the al Qaeda leader favorably (2% Americans). Nine in ten Americans have a very unfavorable opinion of bin Laden and ninety-two percent of Americans say al Qaeda poses an important threat to the United States, including 59 percent who say it poses a critical one.

Such results are surprising to many people, given the fact that the Western media has painted a much different picture of Iran and its citizens. It is important however to distinguish between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people. The current Regime in Iran does in fact export weapons and materials to terrorist organizations such as Hamas. The fact that a majority of the Iranian people reject such terrorism highlights the oppressive nature of the regime, and its disconnect with the people.

This disconnect between the Iranian regime and the citizenry is something I hope the current American administration takes note of. Regime change must occur from inside of Iran. Pre-emptive military action against Iran is a dangerous path to choose, and would no doubt go down in history as the worst foreign policy decision in our nations history (after the Iraq War).

We all assume that the Bush administration would not be so foolish, but lets not kid ourselves… the neo-conservative ideology is a dangerous one. Let’s hope common sense and reality sneaks its way into the discussion this time around (maybe Dick Cheney will be sick that day).

Non-binding resolution on Iraq intellectually dishonest?

Earlier this month Senator John McCain, a long advocate of a troop surge in Iraq (my blog on the issue), called those who supported a non-binding resolution disagreeing with the surge “intellectually dishonest.” He also had this to say about the vote:

I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what’s necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of ‘disapproval…This is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there.

While I believe that McCain went too far when stating that this resolution was a “vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops,” I do sympathize with much of what he expressed. His comments further highlight the growing role that partisan politics is playing in the debate on Iraq.

Fearing the ‘weak on defense’ label, it is apparent that the Democrats in Congress are unwilling to stand up for what they claim to believe. If this troop surge is in fact a mistake, and if the party truly believes that it is doomed to failure, logic tells us that they should do whatever is necessary to end this failed policy. With the exception of a few Congressman, the Democratic party has failed to heed to call of the voters in November and are in fact being ‘intellectually dishonest’ as McCain claims.

The ghost of Vietnam is hanging over the heads of the Democratic party in Congress. It was not long ago that the parties decision to use the ‘purse strings’ to end an unpopular war in Vietnam tattooed the idea in the minds of many Americans that the democratic party is weak on defense.

I am not calling for the Democrats to push for an immediate withdrawal (I am not in favor of one), I am simply troubled by their decision to push for this non-binding resolution. Such a resolution is not a viable option when seeking to win the approval of the nation, especially when the resolution directly contradicts the moral stance you claim to be taking in regards to the ongoing conflict.

If the Democratic party (and some in the Republican party) is truly concerned about this escalation, they are morally obligated to act and accept the political consequences that result from such action. 21.500 soldiers being sent into the heart of a civil war deserve more courageous actions from this Congress; both the Democratic majority and the Republicans who disagree with the escalation.