A new year, a new president, a new chance for Darfur?

We’re looking toward a new year, a new president, and maybe an end to genocide in Darfur. In his Sunday New York Times column, “A New Chance for Darfur,” Nick Kristof summarized a memo Ambassador Richard Williamson, President Bush’s special envoy to Sudan, wrote to the president this fall. In brief, the steps Williamson outlined were 1) the United States could jam all communications—telephones, cell phones, Internet—in Khartoum for a period of time to demonstrate Sudan’s weakness; 2) the US could apply “progressive pressure” to Port Sudan by placing naval ships near the port, searching or turning back ships, and finally halting or quarantining oil exports from Sudan; and 3) the US could destroy Sudan’s military aircraft that flies on offensive missions in Darfur, in violation of the United Nation’s ban.

Kristof acknowledges that these actions are extreme but says “genocide is pretty serious, too.”

He also points out that if President-Elect Barack Obama has the political will—and given the size and intensity of the anti-genocide movement he has the popular support—we may be able to end the genocide. Bashir is afraid of the president-elect because he understands the gravity of genocide and the importance of international justice. Kristof writes, “If Mr. Obama and his aides can work with Europe, China and Qatar to keep the heat on—and to make clear that Sudan has no choice but to hand over President Bashir once the [International Criminal] court issues the arrest warrant—then we just might avert a new war and end the first genocide of the 21st century in the new year.”

Genocide Prevention Task Force: Marching orders for the next administration

Just when we thought genocide would disappear completely from the world's headlines, the United States Institute of Peace Genocide Prevention Task Force has issued its final report. It is a landmark for genocide prevention efforts, not least because the Task Force features genuine policy heavyweights, including former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Defense Secretary William Cohen.

The report begins with welcome clarity: "People of conscience rightly demand: 'never again.' There is no doubt that genocide and mass atrocities exact a horrific human toll. They constitute a direct assault on universal human values, including, most fundamentally, the right to life."

Equally as important, however, is how the report frames genocide as an issue for US foreign policy:

"Genocide and mass atrocities also threaten core U.S. national interests.

They feed on and fuel other threats in weak and corrupt states, with dangerous spillover effects that know no boundaries. If the United States does not engage early in preventing these crimes, we inevitably bear greater costs—in feeding millions of refugees and trying to manage long-lasting regional crises.

In addition, U.S. credibility and leadership are compromised when we fail to work with international partners to prevent genocide and mass atrocities."

At last, the crux of the matter! Genocide isn't simply a moral atrocity, it is a geopolitical threat. Building on this conclusion, the report outlines several excellent and long-overdue suggestions to make genocide prevention- at last- a core object of American foreign policy. Most apposite to this blog's purposes are the recommendations to direct the Director of National Intelligence to prepare an annual, global analysis of the threat of genocide, and the creation of an interagency Atrocities Prevention task force to respond and prevent escalating situations of mass violence.

Even in an age of climate change, economic collapse, and war, these are inspired recommendations that ought to be on the top of the pile for the next administration. This won't be easy, as The Economist reports. But in dealing with genocide, that should deter no one, for as the Task Force report make clear, the costs of genocide, both moral and geopolitical, are greater than any of us can bear.