Obama’s Disappearance On Darfur

Pages: 1 2

Perhaps nothing better indicates post-election Obama’s having gone “soft on genocide” and his failed policy to end the violence than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Khartoum last Wednesday to start an 11-day African tour. With the continuing slaughter of black African peoples in Sudan, one would think an African-American president would have his top foreign affairs official breathing fire in talks with the Sudanese. But nothing of the kind seems to have occurred.

According to a Sudan Tribune report of her meeting with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Katri, it appears Clinton’s main focus was getting talks back on track between Khartoum and the government of South Sudan over the implementation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended the North-South civil war and resulted in South Sudan becoming an independent country in 2011. Darfur was not even mentioned in the story, indicating its importance in the discussions, while the war in South Kordofan was brought up in the context of Clinton asking Katri to allow humanitarian aid, which Khartoum had cut off on July 25, to flow back into the devastated region.

But such lack of firmness on the part of the Obama administration towards the Bashir government’s genocidal behaviour is not surprising. Retired Air Force General Scott Gration, Obama’s special envoy to Sudan between 2009 and 2011, once said there were only “remnants of genocide” in Darfur and followed Obama’s naïve policy of offering incentives to get the criminal regime in Khartoum to change its barbaric ways. Gration once famously stated: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries – they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”

One critic, Eric Reeves, author of the book A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moment’s in the Darfur Genocide, said Gration had “…no significant diplomatic experience or knowledge of Sudan…” and followed a “notorious policy of appeasement” with the ICC-wanted criminal Bashir.

But this soft approach would just have been a reflection of what Gration’s political superiors in Washington wanted.

“Gration’s record in Darfur has been one of complete failure,” Reeves stated in 2011.

To show what a low priority the Dafur crisis appears to have become for Obama, in 2010 at a State Department background briefing an official said the Department “would…be decoupling the state sponsor of terrorism from Darfur and the Darfur issue” in order to get Khartoum’s co-operation on the upcoming independence referendum in southern Sudan. Sudan was on the State Department’s list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

“The ‘Darfur issue’: what fantastically euphemistic language for what had previously been ‘genocide’, Reeves wrote scathingly. “…But the message here has not been lost on the brutally calculating men in Khartoum: in extremis, the USwill choose the southern CPA over ending genocidal violence and attrition inDarfur.”

Hilary Clinton’s visit to Khartoum this week appears to confirm Reeves’s analysis.

So having gone the full circle from roaring lion in 2004 to quiet lamb in 2012 about Darfur, the question remains as to why the dramatic change? Of all the reasons proffered, Winter probably stated the most likely one before the congressional committee when commenting on the “eccentricities” of Gration’s approach to the Khartoum regime, saying they “are related to the Administration’s commitment to ‘reach out’ to the Arab and Islamic world.” In other words, don’t treat an Arab regime, even a genocidal one, harshly or the other Arab countries won’t be your friend.

But this weak, naïve and less than insightful approach by Obama to Sudan will not produce the desired peace but only encourage Khartoum to continue its hard-line stance and murderous aggression. And this, in turn, will only produce more of the same for Sudan’s long-suffering, black African people in South Kordofanand Darfur, for whom Obama once used to express such great concern: war, death and enslavement.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Bamaguje

    Being a Taqiyya Muslim who has been brainwashed to glorifiy Allah's chosen race, Obama is much more more concerned with the plight of Arabs – Syria, Libya, Egypt, Palestinians etc.
    Hence the supposed leader of the free world disgracefully genuflected before the king of Wahabi Islam.
    Thus he can't do anything to offend his Arab masters by siding with Black Africans from whom he reportedly descended.
    Note that all his names – Barack Hussein Obama – are Arab not African.

  • Rifleman

    Obama's busy making more Darfur's. His promises have a short expiration date.

    • ebonystone

      Yes, his "Arab Spring" buddies in Libya were killing black African immigrant workers even before they had finished Gaddafi.

  • Jerry

    He has not turned a blind eye! He sees everything but just doesn't care.

  • Chris

    Mr. Brown,
    With these "Democrats" ya have to read the entire picture of their actions and not a word of what they say. That is because they are liars, and want to hide their unpopular agendas. It appears that the strategy to help the victims of genocide in Sudan is to relocate them here to the USA by using Catholic Charities and State Department operations. It also appears that the Obama regime has no intention of stopping the Arab North Sudanese from accomplishing their goals in Sudan. In fact, Hillary Clinton asking the North Sudanese to "talk" is like asking a pit viper to talk about peace. Ans I am sure she knows it. In the bigger picture, the Arabs have probably bought and paid for most of the Democrats in our congress and probably even bough Obama. I'm just sayin……. So if the Arabs come here and start Genocide, what would the Obama administration do ??? Think about that.

    • Kufar Dawg

      WRT your last sentence I thought the same thing while reading this article.

    • curmudgeon

      the question you ask has already been answered. both the silly bush administration and the openly islamist obama administration have invited as many muslims to colonize our country as they could get. to accept muslims is to accept genocide. the decision has already been made. only the implementation remains. keep those dhimmi heads buried in the sand to you cant see the coming genocide.

  • http://www.thereligionofpeace.com Porky's2istan

    Maybe President Obama came to the realization that a bunch of poor africans (of any religion) are completely unimportant to American's interests. You should applaud him for being a coldly rational statesman instead of a bleeding heart liberal that would get us into endless wars. Typical of right wingers. Everything Bush did was perfect and everything Obama does is wrong. If you didn't criticize Bush for his mideast blunders (and there were a lot) then you have lost the credibility to criticize Obama.

    The fact is that we are addicted to oil. We know where the terrorists come from, we know who finances then. and we do nothing because we need that black crack. Unless we are willing to REALLY invade the middle east and take control of ALL the oil, we have to kiss muslim ass. The faster that oil runs out, the better for the rest of the world.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    "Obama’s Disappearance On Darfur"

    Hardly. That is more Obama-Hegelian Alinsky Kabuki Theater. All for show. What ever it takes.

    While Obama has been quick to criticize Israel for continuing to build in East Jerusalem, he has yet to murmur any public displeasure with Mahmoud Abbas.

    Moreover, while Mahmoud Abbas and the Arab League have rallied around fellow leader Bashir, Israel has provided a safe haven for hundreds of Darfur refugees.

    July 13, 2010
    Obama's 'peace partner' embraces author of Darfur genocide http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/obama