Empty Benchmarks

As the call for the US government to proceed to Plan B increases, critics are asking why, more than two months past the deadline, the Bush Administration is so reluctant.

In November 2006, the Sudanese signed an agreement in Addis Ababa. Despite months of rejecting UN troops, President Bashir accepted a UN-AU hybrid force under joint UN-AU command and UN financial/logistical support. The US government stated that failure to implement the Addis Ababa agreement by January 1 would call for a "Plan B," of which details were not disclosed.

So why, mid-March, has Special Envoy Andrew Natsios only begun to speculate that President Bush may make a decision to move ahead with stronger sanctions? Natsios, who met with President Bashir in December, requested a moratorium on visas as well as the facilitation of a UN-AU force. Bashir gave a two year extension on visas and indicated that he would, in fact, allow for Phase I of the peacekeeping forces. Therefore, Natsios suggests, President Bashir met his obligations. Until last week, when Bashir signed a letter condemning Phase I, the US had no justification for moving to Plan B.

It seems to me, then, that the US is setting its standards too low. Are we really going to allow a genocide to continue because President Bashir technically met our requests? Unless the people are protected and a political process is implemented, our actions haven't done much good. It's time for the US to set meaningful requirements with the end goal of stopping the genocide rather than just appearing to take action.