Another Stain in the Clinton Oval Office
By Sean Redding, Domestic Affairs Staff Writer
President Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001 with blood on his hands, stains that may never come off. The blood belongs to the 800,000 Rwandans whom the Clinton administration virtually ignored in 1994 as they screamed out to the international community for help. By failing to act to stop the Rwanda genocide, Clinton solidified a perfect, yet sickening, precedent for the U.S. and the world. Every single time genocide comes before us, we fail to act. In the United States especially, such a record is humiliating. Unfortunately, the 21st century has not yet seen a significant change in world or U.S. policy on genocide. Since the atrocities first began in 2003, the slaughter in Darfur, a western region of Sudan, has been allowed to continue unchecked. Looking at the Darfur crisis from an American viewpoint only, the genocide has the potential to leave the same dark stain that plagues Clinton’s legacy on President George W. Bush’s, but the stain has not been left yet.
Obviously there is the question of what role the U.S. President should play in stopping genocide, as previous presidents have not provided a satisfying precedent. Up until this point, Bush’s position on Darfur has been a confusing one, but he is not a hopeless case yet. In fact, Bush’s limited action has already surpassed that of Clinton, whose administration “spent more time maneuvering to avoid using the term ''genocide'' than it did using its resources to save lives” [1] during the Rwandan genocide.
This comparison is an interesting one, and a brief analysis of Clinton’s failed response could shed light on the presidential action against genocide necessary today. The problem with the word “genocide” in the case of Rwanda is that the term compelled specific action according to the United Nations’ “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (CPPCG). Leading anti-genocide activist and scholar Samantha Power wrote of the administration’s inaction: “In May 1994, an internal Pentagon memo warned against using the term ‘genocide’ because it could commit the United States ‘to actually do something.’'' [2] Clinton officials spent months avoiding the word genocide and the responsibility that comes with it. In those months of avoidance, 800,000 innocent Rwandans died.
To his credit, President Clinton has expressed an immense amount of remorse regarding the Rwanda killings, even going so far as to call it one of the greatest regrets of his entire presidency. [3] In Bush’s case, regret is already becoming a very real possibility, as Power writes “[t]oday, roughly 1,000 miles north of Rwanda, tens of thousands of Africans are herded onto death marches, and Western leaders are again sitting in offices. How sad it is that it doesn't even seem strange.” [4] Bush, so keen to separate himself from Clinton in most political issues, is precariously teetering on the edge of Clinton’s remorseful footsteps.
Fortunately, it seems that the U.S. has moved past the taboo surrounding the word “genocide.” The President has labeled the crisis correctly. However, according to Gérard Prunier, though Bush declared genocide in 2004 [5] , he has sent mixed messages about his commitment to stopping the genocide. Prunier noted that Bush has received a large amount of pressure from both left-wing and right-wing activists to act in Darfur, but he has also been urged by members of the intelligence community to avoid treating Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, negatively.
According to Prunier, these opposing pressures have caused Bush to compromise in a somewhat confusing manner. [6] His State Department has devoted much energy to supporting negotiations between the Darfurian rebel groups and the Khartoum government, and under his leadership the U.S. gives more money to humanitarian assistance in Darfur than any other country. He has also been relatively vocal on the issue, giving a speech in April 2007 in which he demanded the Sudan stop its genocidal policies, threatening strict measures if the Khartoum regime did not comply. While these actions are certainly significant, they are not enough, especially when the refusal to even mention the possibility of a multinational peacekeeping force or the lack of strong economic actions against Sudan are considered.
As Prunier writes, “President Bush tried to be all things to all men on the Sudan/Darfur question,” even noting that the Darfur issue was virtually dropped right after re-election. [7] However, since re-election, Bush has appointed Andrew Natsios as special envoy to Sudan and mentioned Darfur in his State of the Union address in January, 2007. The legacy of uncertainty continues though, as he still has not worked to enforce the 2006 Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.
Bush’s legacy on genocide may be confusing, but it is not set in stone. Grassroots activists, who have been the strongest advocates for the people of Darfur, have pointed to specific steps that the President must take. Some of these include enforcing the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, enforcing a no-fly zone over Sudan, and just continuing to be vocal against the genocidal regime in Khartoum. [8] He must also enforce strict economic sanctions against Sudan as well as the individuals perpetrating the genocide, and he must urge China, Sudan’s largest oil consumer, to sever its ties with Khartoum.
What should make action easier for the President is that Congress is ready and willing to work with him on this issue in a bipartisan way, and individual members of Congress have already taken it upon themselves to do what they can to stop the genocide. Most notable are Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who have been rated as Darfur Champions by the Genocide Intervention Network. [9] Durbin recently helped to create the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Law, which he now chairs. On February 5, 2007, Durbin and his subcommittee held the first hearings on the genocide and called attention to the need to move forward, thanking Bush for what he had done.
In September of 2001, President Bush scribbled the words “Not On My Watch” over the margin of a report on the Clinton response to the Rwanda genocide. [10] Since then, his response to the Darfur genocide can at best be described as mediocre. While this is most definitely a step up from Clinton’s miserable lack of response to the Rwanda genocide, it is not enough. Bush must go several steps further to ensure that he is not remembered as just another President who let genocide go unchecked. In his speech at the United States Memorial Holocaust Museum, President Bush said “ The time for promises is over -- President Bashir must act.” [11] Well, Mr. President, I could say the same to you.
Share your thoughts on this article on the GW Discourse Discussion Board
[1] Power, Samantha. “Remember Rwanda, but take action in Sudan.” The New York Times. April 6 2004. The New York Times Company. Accessed April 14, 2007.
[2] Power, Samantha. “Remember…”
[3] Clinton, Bill. My Life. Alfred A. Knopf. New York 2004 593.
[4] Power, Samantha. “Remember…”
[5] Pruiner, Gérard. Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York, 2005. 157.
[6] Prunier, Gérard. 140.
[7] Prunier, Gérard. 140.
[8] For elaboration and further examples, see www.genocideintervention.net, www.savedarfur.org, or www.standnow.org
[9] See www.darfurscores.org for more information.
[10] Taylor Jr., Stuart. “Genocide in Darfur: Crime Without Punishment?” The Atlantic. February 22, 2005.
[11] Bush, George W. “Speech at the Holocaust Museum”. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. www.ushmm.org/remembrance/dor/years/2007/speech/bush.php