Haven't posted about Darfur in several months, as the press has not been covering the situation since the Obama election.
But here's an editorial in The New Republic, the liberal magazine that is at the opposite spectrum from the conservative National Review.
The New Republic was a huge supporter of the Obama campaign, but they are pretty unhappy about his actions on Darfur. Or rather, his non-action.
Back in 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama minced no words when it came to Sudan. "When you see a genocide, whether it's in Rwanda or Bosnia or in Darfur, that's a stain on all of us," he said. "That's a stain on our souls." Obama is now president, and Darfur is still a mess. …
>>>>>>
… we should judge his policies in this area by a single standard: Are they accomplishing the goal of ending Darfur's suffering? We are sad to say that the initial signs have not been encouraging. In fact, as Obama supporters, we are extraordinarily disappointed.
>>>>>>
Not surprisingly, alarm is growing among many liberals about this administration's approach to Darfur. Everyone from a relative dove like Nicholas Kristof to a relative hawk like (TNR contributor) Eric Reeves has expressed concern over the trajectory of Obama's Sudan policy. Count us among them. We hope that Obama will reverse course on Darfur. Meanwhile, the stain on our souls only grows.
Count me amongst the unsurprised.
Leave a Reply