Flawed Democracy? Dictatorship? Upcoming Civil War? All the Above?

Seems Nikolas Kristof reads my blog--ok, ok I can dream can't I? I imagine he either read the many other blog posts like my last one or more than likely had a lot of the seems thoughts as the ones I expressed. Makes sense since I am a devoted reader to his column. Whatever the motivation for his most recent column, it seemed to be a good follow-up to the concerns I have over the US response to the recent Sudan elections and the upcoming referendum.

I wanted to pull out three quotes from the column, but since one of them is kind of long, I recommend just reading it. Oh wait, you're here persumably for my commentary so read this before/after... thanks!

“If the result of the referendum is independence, there is going to be war — complete war,” predicts Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, one of Sudan’s most outspoken human rights advocates. He cautions that America’s willingness to turn a blind eye to election-rigging here increases the risk that Mr. Bashir will feel that he can get away with war.

“They’re very naïve in Washington,” Mr. Mudawi said. “They don’t understand what is going on.”

As I fear, despite the relatively blood-less elections Bashir will feel emboldened by his new found *cough cough* "legitimacy" (excuse me while I cough up a lung) that he'll believe he has a mandate or the power to forcibly keep Sudan together regardless of next year's referendum for southern independence. Seeing that the referendum is likely to pass overwhelmingly any such action would lead to civil war as Mudawai suggests.

Although as Kristof says, "On the other hand, a senior Sudanese government official, Ghazi Salahuddin, told me unequivocally in Khartoum, the nation’s capital, that Sudan will honor the referendum results."

Perhaps American "diplomacy" is working and while the elections were not free or fair in the least, Bashir will be content to be the "legitimate" (here comes that coughing again) leader of Sudan without the oil rich south. From all the commentary out there that sounds unlikely, but I suppose let's keep our fingers crossed?

Kristof ends the article with a statement that may sound like the same old calls for action, but rings more true now: "My own hunch is that the north hasn’t entirely decided what to do, and that strong international pressure can reduce the risk of another savage war. If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon."

Did we need Obama to act and appoint a special envoy a lot sooner in order to deal with ICC backlash in 2009? Yes. Have we done far too little to respond to recent violence in Darfur? Yes. But now more than ever do we need leadership by the United States along with other international actors to prevent a civil war? YES!

The adminstration plan to simultaneously be lukewarm regarding the election's legitimacy while continuing to defacto legitimize a genocidal dictator by engaging him as a negotiating partner may be a gamble that pays off. Even if that is the case, though, holding Bashir's feet to the fire (while we hold Obama's) will be necessary to keep him from another of his notorious 180s next year.

If the gamble doesn't work out, than alternative plans must be made to avoid civil war AND Sudan will at least for now will be stuck with Bashir and the NCP. But to end here's a bonus quote that made me vomit a little (see if you can keep down your lunch):

“Even America is becoming an N.C.P. member. No one is against our will.” -President Omar al-Bashir, indicted war criminal, suspected instigator of two genocides.

Legitmizing the Devil

I know this sentiment isn't unique, but I still have to ponder "out loud" here. Our government has made the decision to continue working with Omar al-Bashir despite many concerns from the EU, AU and the Carter Center about the voter suppression and vote rigging. Even a State Department spokesperson said, "This was not a free and fair election. It did not, broadly speaking, meet international standards."

The key motivation seems to be that the US has decided that getting through the elections in order to maintain the CPA time line and be willing to accept an illegitimate president indicted of war crimes and quite possibly guilty of genocide continue to be a chief diplomatic partner in ending the genocides and conflicts he and his cronies are responsible for.

With tensions as high as it is, a delay or cancellation of the South Sudan referendum would surely crush already fragile relationships between Juba and Khartoum and likely create more violence if not a return to war. So our hope is to indirectly legitimate liar, murderer and rapist as president of Sudan in the hope he honors an agreement to lose control over a significant amount of land and oil next year.

While I sympathize with the State Deparmtent's desire to keep the CPA together in order to prevent things from getting worse and therefore not being more aggressive in refusing Bashir's illegitmate legitimization, who the hell believes we're going to be able to trust him or his NCP government next year anyway?

Though I'm still a huge Obama supporter, for Sudan we need far more than hope to get change.

Hypersenstivity Meets Kindergarten Pettiness

Apparently conservatives are making Dan Rather their latest target for claiming comments he made on Chris Matthews show as racist. While I was never a big fan of Dan Rather and I absolutely disdain Chris Matthews I just have to take a moment to break from my usual commentary on international affairs to tell conservatives to shut up on this one.

Dan Rathers said President Obama ” … couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”

OOOO he mentioned our black president in the same thought as watermelons! Guess what, Obama also likes basketball and I like money. So apparently I hate black people and I'm furthering the negative Jewish stereotype.

While perhaps it can be (and apparently is) argued this was a poor choice of words. I don't think so, I think this was just another of Dan Rather folksy (and silly) sayings. Being post-racial or trans-racial or whatever you want to call it is being aware of your place in a multi-racial society. its embattled history and work whenever possible to create connections and opportunities that celebrate both differences and similarities. Being a post- or trans-racial society does not mean policing ourselves not to say things that have vague random similarities to racist comments.

He didn't say Obama loves watermelons because he's black. But y'all are making stupid comments because you're petty conservative commentators. Oooo, I said it. Now shut the fuck up.