Politicians, Letter Writing, and the Darfur Crisis
posted by Alrabae Adam Ezaldeen
Just two weeks ago, on February 16th, Stanford’s chapter of Students Taking Action Now: Darfur (STAND) organized a major letter-writing session, urging students to sign pre-written letters to their congressmen. According to The Stanford Daily, the purpose of this is to convince the U.S. government to “expedite the deployment of a 20,000-member peacekeeping force” as well as “commit to funding the effort.”
It is undeniable that atrocities have been committed in West Sudan. As of January 2007, more than 400,000 people have died. Therefore, I have nothing but praise for my friends who collectively lined up behind the “Save Darfur” banners to write to their senators and congressmen. Many of them are idealists, and it is wrong to trample on their idealism. At the same time, it makes sense to examine the systemic reasons why Congress may be reluctant to do anything about Darfur, and why our letter-writing alone may not be enough to reverse the genocide. By doing so, we can stop blaming ourselves for Sudan’s problems, and perhaps we might even free ourselves to think about why Congress’ probable inaction on Darfur might even have a silver lining.
In general, whether Republican or Democrat, politicians are motivated by two forces: voter interests and financial interests. They need votes in order to remain in office and they have a general responsibility to carry out their voters’ wishes, especially before election times. Therefore, they also have to support causes that coincide with their voters’ desires. At the same time, politicians also need huge amounts of money to pay for their campaigns. As a result, politicians’ votes in Congress often depend not merely on their personal beliefs, but also on their financial supporters, be they think-tanks, corporate bodies, or trade unions. Thus, Congress’ behavior is often shaped by the twin forces of popularity and money.Given this political climate, how will the Darfur issue fare in Washington? Unfortunately, in terms of financial clout, the “Save Darfur” lobby is weak. Unlike more prominent groups, such as the military-industrial complex and the energy lobby, the Darfur lobby does not possess sufficient wealth and power to influence Congress in a truly systemic way.
In terms of voter interest, the Darfur issue also possesses far less political weight than domestic issues, including taxes, Social Security, abortion, gay marriage, and even the environment. To be sure, STAND’s actions are admirable because they help to raise public awareness of the Darfur conflict. But although Americans generally feel sympathetic toward the genocide victims in West Sudan, many of us fear that intervention may cost the lives of our fellow Americans. Moreover, although the suffering of Darfur victims is real, the problem is that America is not responsible for their tribal conflicts. Because we did not cause their suffering, the Islamic world may see American intervention in Arab Sudan as evidence not of altruism, but imperialism.
Given the nature of politicians in general, it is unlikely that both houses of Congress will take groundbreaking steps to stop the Darfur conflict. Although virtually all senators and representatives will pay lip service to the Darfur issue, few of them will be willing to spend substantive amounts of political capital on it. Even if the Darfur lobby manages to muster the majority needed to pass a bill through Congress, chances are that the resolution will be heavily-diluted, ambiguous, and full of compromises and loopholes by the time it passes through both the Senate and the House. Congress would probably pass another vaguely-worded, non-committal resolution offering ritual condemnation of the atrocities, but suggesting support for future multilateral action through the African Union, the U.N., or NATO. As such, the Darfur issue will probably pass (again) from the U.S. Congress to the United Nations, i.e. from one inefficient bureaucracy to the next. Given that the United Nations already has enormous difficulty assembling even a small 20,000-member peacekeeping force, passing the buck to the U.N. means that for all practical purposes, the Darfur conflict will continue until the factions involved grow exhausted. Unlike our war in Afghanistan, which was waged in response to the post-9/11 outcry, there is little popular momentum or emotion to support sending U.S. troops to Darfur. Few politicians are likely to take the risk of supporting massive action in that region.
Fortunately, we can retrospectively justify congressional inaction over Darfur, not by denying the magnitude of the atrocities, but by pointing out an oft-ignored point: our national interest is not at stake.
Former president Bill Clinton once said that America “is not the world’s policeman.” In other words, America should not impose her values on other nations. Our invasion of Iraq, despite being ostensibly to spread democracy to the Middle East, has been widely condemned by most of the world. Although we may be horrified at what the Janjaweed militants are doing to innocent civilians, any U.S. intervention in Arab Sudan is likely to lead not only to casualties, but also to insurgency and terrorism. As patriots, we must ask ourselves, “How would expending American blood and treasure in Darfur serve our national interest? Is it really worth sending our American brothers and sisters, some of whom joined the military to go to college, to risk life and limb in the distant African desert to fight people who have not attacked us?”
Here in America, we are fortunate to live on a continent that is strategically shielded from the rest of the world by two large oceans. Historically, our fortunate geographical position has kept us safe from the wars that have plagued people in Europe, Asia, and Africa. As Americans, our duty is to preserve this great nation that our forefathers left us, rather than lose our freedom by pushing our country into unnecessary foreign wars. By thinking of America first, we remain a permanent beacon of liberty and light in a world that is often tormented by war, strife, and barbarism. As George Washington said in his farewell address, “Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a position? Why quit our own, to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”
Today, we ought to ask ourselves the same question of Darfur. Even as our politicians drag their feet on the tragic Darfur issue, we should comfort ourselves in the thought that isolating America from the world’s quarrels might be best for our republic.
