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.
Hangings fuel sectarian split.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the affects that the execution of Saddam Hussein and his two lieutenants have had in the middle east.
The botched hanging of Saddam Hussein and two lieutenants in Iraq by its Shiite-led government has helped to accelerate Sunni-Shiite sectarianism across an already fragile Middle East, according to experts across the region.
The chaotic executions and the calm with which Mr. Hussein confronted the gallows and mocking Shiite guards have bolstered his image among many of his fellow Sunni Muslims.
I do not have time to write about this issue now, but simply wanted to point it out to those of you who may be interested. You can find the full article here.
Boise, ID vigil to shut down Guantanamo.
Thursday afternoon I made a trip to a vigil at the Idaho statehouse aimed at persuading both Idaho citizens and local leaders to take a stand concerning torture, extraordinary renditions, and the legacy of Guantanamo. This local event was just a small part of what Amnesty International deemed the international day of action to shut down Guantanamo.
While I applaud the willingness of those who attended to fight for such a cause in such difficult weather conditions, I was disappointed by the event. Little or no time was spent discussing the critical problems of the prison. Instead the focus was religious; every speaker at the event tended to focus on their belief that acts such as torture are “un-Christian” and therefore a sin.
While this may be true, such convictions fail to motivate given its dependency on a specific religious doctrine. The focus should have been on both the role that Guantanamo plays in the so-called war on terror, and on the abandonment of basic human rights, which the prison represents. Reasons such as these would motivate anyone concerned about their future as an American citizen, the security of American troops, and the homeland.
The fact is that holding detainees for an undefined amount of time without trial or release is troublesome for American security. Those who are being held have little or no contact with their families, and are subjected to questionable treatment that many have defined as torture. If those taken to Guantanamo were not terrorists going in, they are without a doubt going to be terrorists for the remainder of their lives. The prison has become a center for radicalization.
The existence of such a prison, along with the Bush administrations willingness to use what many define as torture also puts our troops at risk. This point has been argued by Colin Powell, John McCain, along with others. If we are in fact violating the Geneva Conventions (and we are even with the new legislation, Bush determines what constitutes torture), we are therefore providing other nations with the justification needed to violate them themselves. This will place our men and women in a brutal environment in future conflicts with other nations.
These two issues are two of many that the organizers of this vigil could have focused on during this international day of action. While religious conviction is important, and pointing out to those who are part of the Christian tradition that torture and abuse violates the basic teachings of their faith is also important, such a focus isolates much of the community from the event.
Again, I am not taking anything away from those who attended, I simply wish the focus would have been different.
President unveils new Iraq policy.
The Bush administration has offically announced its plan to stablize Iraq. While the surge aspect of this plan has been known for a while, a few more specific policies were hinted at by the President. The New York Times summarized many of these new policies:
Troop Levels:
Mr. Bush announced he would send five additional brigades to Baghdad, an increase of about 16,000 combat troops that would roughly double the number of troops in the capital. The new troops would act in support of Iraqi forces, and would have the authority to clear and secure neighborhoods in both Sunni- and Shiite-majority areas. An additional 4,000 troops would be sent to Anbar Province, which the president described as a “home base” for Al Qaeda.
Economic Strategy:
Mr. Bush announced plans to double the number of provincial reconstruction teams and to give commanders and civilians more flexibility in spending on local improvements. He also announced that Iraq will allocate $10 billion to assist with reconstruction projects.
Political and Diplomatic Strategy:
Mr. Bush stressed that regional stability would be necessary for success in Iraq, and warned that the U.S. would “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria” to extremists in Iraq. The president said he had ordered an additional carrier strike group to the region and would deploy Patriot missile systems in order to reassure U.S. allies. Mr. Bush also noted that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to the Middle East on Friday as part of a broad diplomatic effort to rally support for the Iraqi government.
Iraqi Benchmarks:
Mr. Bush announced that the U.S. would hold the Iraqi government to a series of benchmarks, including the completion of a national oil law, the setting of a date for provincial elections, the influx of more Iraqi brigades to Baghdad, and the reforming of de-Baathification policies. Mr. Bush did not specify what he planned to do if Iraq failed to meet the agreed-upon measures.
While I am not going to analyze these policies in this blog, I do plan on doing so in the near future. I just found this New York Times article useful, and figured I would share it with those of you who may be interested.
One quick observation though… Does anyone else find it disturbing that these policies are part of a “new” strategy? For the most part, these are things that we should have prepared for prior to the invasion in 2003.
What’s your new year’s resolution?
The new year is just around the corner, and it’s time for all of us set our goals for the new year. I am writing this somewhat unusual blog in an attempt to persuade you to a adpot a specific resolution. Savedarfur.org is gathering signatures of those who are willing pledge their support in 2007.
We need your help to increase the pressure on our leaders to stop the violence in 2007. Please join us in bringing tens of thousands more concerned citizens into our efforts to save Darfur.
That’s why we’re asking you to make it your New Year’s resolution to sign our petition asking the President and the UN Secretary-General to take immediate steps to stop the violence.
I hope you join me in providing support and hope for millions of Darfuris. It only takes a minute or two for you to sign this petition. Your signature will greatly enhance Savedarfur’s ability to pressure the President and the United Nations Secretary General. Such pressure is a necessity, and will indeed play a large role in ending this genocide.
Dear Senator John McCain…
Dear Senator John McCain,
According to a recent New York Times article, your belief that the United States needs to increase troop levels and fight the war in Iraq using the “Powell Doctrine” has been challenged… by General Colin Powell himself. This past week you visited the troops in Baghdad, and made this statement concerning troop levels:
“I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control” and to “allow the political process to proceed.”
This statement contradicts the view held by the individual who created the doctrine you wish to adopt. General Powell has expressed to the media that he is “unsure” if an increase in troop levels would help stop the sectarian violence and secure Baghdad and the Anbar province. He has also made it clear that even if it would help, the United States has no additional troops to send.
These facts lead me to wonder if you have in fact asked yourself what the Powell doctrine requires you to ask yourself. According to the Powell doctrine you need to ask yourself the following questions before choosing to take this route:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Given your support for the Powell Doctrine it is safe to assume that either you: a) have not asked yourself these necessary questions, or b) have a sense of priorities contrary to that of the American people and General Powell himself. I come to this conclusion based on the answers that would be derived from many of these important questions. Most notably the second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth question.
spacer
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Do we have a clear objective? From the view of the American people the answer is undoubtedly no. The president prefers to barrage the American people with political rhetoric and false accounts of the war rather than be honest with us about the challenge we are truly facing. This leaves the public confused and uninformed, and therefore ignorant to our true objective. You as a Senator may have more information… will you tell us what our objective is?
Is our objective attainable? This aspect of this question is more difficult to answer given the fact that the president prefers to leave the nation in the dark. If we use the information that much of the academic world is providing us however, it becomes clear that the best we can hope for in Iraq is a weak sense of stability - much like the stability the Saddam provided when his Bathist regime ruled the country.
I am not implying that I wish Saddam was still in power as many on the right side of the political spectrum may argue (maybe you too Senator), but rather pointing out the difficulties the Iraq people will be facing in the future. With the rise in sectarian violence and the expansion of the civil war I think all reasonable people can agree that the Iraqi people will face as many hardships, if not more than they faced during the height of Bathist power.
spacer
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Iran, Syria… have we spoken to them yet? It seems this may be something you should be promoting prior to increasing troop levels Senator McCain. To make the decision to place more American troops at risk simply because you don’t want to “reward bad behavior” seems irresponsible in my judgement. I understand that Iran and Syria have little or no motivation to help us in Iraq, but don’t you think it’s better to exhaust all options before putting more young men and women at risk? I’m sure their families think so.
spacer
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Many in the Democratic party have stated their view that more troops will be sent to Iraq if the ultimate goal is to withdrawl US troops. You have not expressed to the media whether this would be your ultimate goal, or if you have something else in mind. According to most in the academic and political world, we are not going to install the model democracy that the Bush administration envisioned while planning for the war; and stability will be born out of a political solution rather than a military solution.
So bluntly stated: If you are not pushing for the Powell Doctrine in order to ultimately reduce troop levels, you are willingly putting US troops in danger hoping for an outcome that will most likely not occur. Do you feel that this position is a morally justifiable position?
spacer
Is the action supported by the American people?
No need to go into great detail regarding this question. Simply visit The Gallup poll and view their latest findings.
click here to view polling data
spacer
Do we have genuine broad international support?
Much like the above question, there is really no need for me to explain to you how the world feels about our presence in Iraq. But one stat I would like to highlight is the fact that according to a poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion 71% of Iraqi’s want US troops to withdrawl within’ one year. Use the link below to learn more about international opinion.
click here to read about international support
spacer
In conclusion, I simply want to ask that you answer these questions as required by the Powell Doctrine before you push for its adoption. I feel that you have an exagerating notion of the role that brute military force can play in situations that require diplomacy and political compromise. Inserting more troops into the situation will not improve upon the situation in Iraq, but simply place our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers in harms way in the name of a failed policy.
The architect of the Powell Doctrine himself (General Powell), has stated that adopting his policy is not the correct decision at this point in time. He has gone through the quesitons listed above and determined that such a policy would most likely hurt our chances in Iraq rather than increase our chances of success.
Like General Powell, I hope you take the time to examine the consequences of policy you are hoping to persuade our country adopt.
spacer
Thank you for your time,
a concerned citizen
Nancy Pelosi on Darfur.
Nancy Pelosi was a guest blogger at savedarfur.org, and wrote this letter concering the atrocities that are taking place:
Fifty eight years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, announcing the basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which every citizen of the world is entitled, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, declaring genocide a crime under international law which the civilized world must prevent. This weekend, we mark these anniversaries with heavy hearts, reminded that we are bound to aid those who have been deprived of these very rights and protections.
In the preamble to the Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations and its members pledged to achieve “the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Despite this pledge, we have seen an atrocity unfold before our very eyes in Darfur, yet we have taken little action to protect these sacrosanct rights. The lack of international action has allowed the Sudanese government to continue with what USAID and the United Nations have called an “ethnic cleansing,” as the nightmare continues for our brothers and sisters in Darfur.
Although the Declaration promises “the right to life, liberty, and security of person,” hundreds of thousands of civilians have been murdered and more than 2.5 million people have been displaced into unprotected camps throughout Sudan or sent to refugee camps in neighboring Chad. The Declaration states that “no one shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” yet hundreds of women are raped or sexually assaulted every week, with no force to protect them. The African Union, the only peacekeeping force in Sudan, does not have the manpower or the mandate to prevent these heinous acts from occurring. It is obvious that the Sudanese government has no intention of stopping its indiscriminate massacre of Darfuris. If we do not act, the people of Darfur will continue to suffer, without hope or end in sight.
As we commemorate the 58th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention we must remember that with the crisis in Darfur, now is no time to celebrate. It is time to champion the rights of the Declaration not by words, but through our actions. We cannot stand idly by as the Sudanese government continues its systematic destruction of the people of Darfur. We are compelled by the conscience of the world to put an end to this humanitarian disaster and restore dignity and hope to the Darfuri. If we do not, we betray our commitment as the protector of human rights, and risk compromising the very nature of our own conscience. I join with you on this Weekend of Prayer for Darfur, and pray that our efforts will bring more attention to the worsening crises.
–Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi
I know that in every blog entry I create that relates to the genocide in Darfur, I end up highlighting the important role that each of us can, and need to play in order to end this crisis. You have heard it all before, so I am not going to repeat myself in this blog. This does not mean however that you should not do what you can to help.
You can learn how to help, and find information on the crisis at savedarfur.org. You do not need to donate money, there are several other ways you can help stop the Genocide in Darfur. Add your voice to the chorus, and soon we’ll become a scream…
Bashir: no genocide in Darfur.
I came across an article concerning the genocide in Darfur on Al Jazeera that I find rather troubling, and just wanted to bring some attention to it. I am short on time today, so I am not able to do any personal analysis related to the article, but I will do a short summary.
Sudan president Omar al-Bashir said that only 9,000 people have died in the Darfur region, and that the United Nations estimate that over 200,000 people have died is simply western propaganda aimed at justifying military intervention. He claims that there is no humanitarian crisis and therefore there is no need for world to become involved.
I don’t have to tell you how outrageous this claim is given the facts on the ground. The genocide is starting to spread like wildfire, and continues to grow more flammable with time. This denial is without a doubt aimed at preventing UN intervention in the region.
Please read the article, and if you haven’t yet, donate your time, your voice, or your money to ending this genocide.