White House Statement on Sudan

The White House has a new policy on Sudan, including calling the violence in Darfur genocide. Statement from the White House:

Today, my Administration is releasing a comprehensive strategy to confront the serious and urgent situation in Sudan.

For years, the people of Sudan have faced enormous and unacceptable hardship. The genocide in Darfur has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and left millions more displaced. Conflict in the region has wrought more suffering, posing dangers beyond Sudan’s borders and blocking the potential of this important part of Africa. Sudan is now poised to fall further into chaos if swift action is not taken.

Our conscience and our interests in peace and security call upon the United States and the international community to act with a sense of urgency and purpose. First, we must seek a definitive end to conflict, gross human rights abuses and genocide in Darfur. Second, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South in Sudan must be implemented to create the possibility of long-term peace. These two goals must both be pursued simultaneously with urgency. Achieving them requires the commitment of the United States, as well as the active participation of international partners. Concurrently, we will work aggressively to ensure that Sudan does not provide a safe-haven for international terrorists.

The United States Special Envoy has worked actively and effectively to engage all of the parties involved, and he will continue to pursue engagement that saves lives and achieves results. Later this week, I will renew the declaration of a National Emergency with respect to Sudan, which will continue tough sanctions on the Sudanese Government. If the Government of Sudan acts to improve the situation on the ground and to advance peace, there will be incentives; if it does not, then there will be increased pressure imposed by the United States and the international community. As the United States and our international partners meet our responsibility to act, the Government of Sudan must meet its responsibilities to take concrete steps in a new direction.

Over the last several years, governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals, and from around the world have taken action to address the situation in Sudan, and to end the genocide in Darfur. Going forward, all of our efforts must be measured by the lives that are led by the people of Sudan. After so much suffering, they deserve a future that allows them to live with greater dignity, security, and opportunity. It will not be easy, and there are no simple answers to the extraordinary challenges that confront this part of the world. But now is the time for all of us to come together, and to make a strong and sustained effort on behalf of a better future for the people of Sudan.

Questions on Security for Obama McCain

The NY Times poses some questions for Obama and McCain on national security:

NYT: 1. Afghan officials have charged that some elements of the Pakistani government are seeking to undermine their country by giving sanctuary to Taliban and Qaeda groups that cross the border to attack Afghanistan. Would you launch large-scale armed attacks against terrorists in Pakistan if the new government there is unwilling — or unable — to suppress these groups and refuses to give United States forces permission to act? Or are you willing to put the Afghan regime at risk in order to play for time in Pakistan, hoping that a more successful government will emerge in Islamabad, and fearing that any attempt to use force there will result in a nuclear-armed anti-Western state?

2. For some years now, the world has watched while ethnic cleansing — even genocide — has gripped Darfur. Are you prepared to announce the rules for American intervention for humanitarian purposes and, if so, what would those rules be? Would you be willing to organize a coalition of states to intervene? Or should the United States defer to the United Nations or regional organizations — even when they are deadlocked and unable to act?

3. It has been more than five years since the United States-led coalition removed Saddam Hussein from power. How long should American troops remain in Iraq if American commanders on the ground state that withdrawal would lead to chaos? That is, should the United States withdraw according to a predetermined timetable, even if the consequences appear dire for Iraq? Or should troops remain indefinitely until their withdrawal can be assured to leave behind a stable Iraq?

4. Would you authorize the use of force by the United States — or collaborate with Israel — to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons if it appears that diplomatic efforts are failing to bring about substantial progress in this regard? If not, what further incentives would you offer Iran to end its nuclear programs? For example, would you be willing to press Israel to do away with its own nuclear weapons as part of a regionwide de-nuclearization? What incentives would you be prepared to offer Israel to desist from a pre-emptive attack? Would you be willing, for instance, to give Israel a place under the United States nuclear umbrella?

5. The Supreme Court recently held that prisoners taken in the war against terror are entitled to habeas corpus review in the federal courts. Is it sensible to speak of a “war” on terror, or is this a struggle that should be principally handled by law enforcement? Should suspected terrorists be given the same protections as ordinary criminals — like the right to confront their accusers and the right not to be tried by illegally obtained evidence? Or should there be special rules for the trials of terror suspects, or even a special court that would hold secret trials?

6. In light of United Nations Security Council inaction in Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and elsewhere, critics have said that the United Nations is not an effective instrument for confronting rogue states, terror and genocide. Do you favor expanding NATO, or using it as a model for creating an alliance of democracies? If you do, would such an alliance require unanimity of its members for action? Or, if you oppose creating such a group, how should the United States confront crises when the council is paralyzed?

7. What if anything should the United States do to further trade negotiations after the collapse of the Doha round in Geneva? Should the United States try to revive multilateral talks, and, if so, how? Do you support bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama? Should the United States abrogate Nafta if Canada and Mexico will not revise the agreement to our liking? Read more.