Of Candidates and Conflict

With the economy in a tail-spin and a dire global security situation, America's voters have plenty to consider as they vote for their next President. In the face of such immediate concerns, it's naive to think that the candidates' stance on genocide prevention and ethnic conflict will be an issue of any significance to the outcome on November 4. But it's not immaterial, either, even to those voters who don't consider themselves part of the "anti-genocide constituency." The candidates' views on Darfur and other conflict-ridden areas sheds light not only on issues of conscience, but also on the orientation of foreign policy.

Genocide and ethnic conflict is stoked by instability, which the US government has also recognized fosters terrorism. By recognizing that the same socio-political instability that leads to genocide threatens US national security generally, Presidential candidates display a nuanced understanding of foreign policy. It's a welcome sign, then, that Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain all signed a May 2008 letter pledging their "unstinting resolve" to ensure "peace and security for the people of Sudan." Senators Obama and McCain, the eventual major-party candidates for the Presidency, also both expressed a willingness to intervene to stop genocide in their second debate.

Nevertheless, one candidate is clearly better poised to address the instability that threatens both future genocides and future threats to US national security: Barack Obama. Senator Obama's chief qualification in this regard is that he would immediately bring much higher political capital to the global stage. In a Bush-weary world, Mr. Obama would represent welcome change to European and African governments, all crucial allies in the fight against extremism in all its forms. Of course, popularity will not sustain a robust foreign policy. But throughout the campaign, Senator Obama and his advisers have repeatedly stressed the importance of the non-military ("non-kinetic") dimensions of national security, suggesting that such dimensions will assume prominence in an Obama foreign policy. The non-profit Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), moreover, notes that Obama has recieved an "A" for his work on Darfur in the Senate, while McCain has been slapped with a "C." "Senator Barack Obama," concludes CGS, "has a firmer grip on the conditions of the Sudanese people and action desperately needed to make the end of genocide in Darfur a reality."

Whatever the election's outcome, though, the next president can take a number of steps to reduce the threats posed by socio-economic instability. The next administration should instruct the Pentagon's new Africa Command to serve as a model for military-civil cooperation in intelligence, economic development, and civil society enhancement. The possibility of a United Nations-sponsored "rapid deployment force," designed to enable UN-sanctioned humanitarian interventions, should be explored. Most of all, the next administration should take the opportunity to reintroduce itself to the world as guarantor of global stability, security, and prosperity. America's conscience, and it's long-term interest, do not permit it to be otherwise- something that the past eight years have proven at such cost.

Africom- A new take on US military involvement in Africa

This past week, the US Department of Defense announced the creation of Africa Command, a new Unified Combatant Command with responsibility for US military forces operating across Africa. The creation of Africom, as it is known, is significant for two reasons. It is the first time that America has created a military command for Africa- previously, operations on the continent had been directed by the European Command in Germany. Africa-watchers can take some heart from this development that Africa will fall more routinely on the radars of senior US defense and security officials. Even more significantly, Africom appears to represent a new direction for civil-military partnerships. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted by The New York Times as saying that Africom will focus on supporting State Department and US Agency for International Development efforts, including by involving military personnel in community health and development activities.

Some, including Kenneth Bacon, President of Refugees International, have criticized the military's move into areas traditionally dominated by civilian agencies and non-governmental organizations. But like it or not, the military has the money and the political clout to do things that such instititions only dream of. Civil-military partnerships have great potential for ameliorating the conditions that lead to ethnic violence, as well as for stopping conflicts once they begin. A robust civil-military presence could do much to enhance stability in some of Africa's weak states, thereby decreasing the potential for unrest to occur.

But it will take an adept commander to turn this potential into reality. Army General William Ward, who has been named to head Africom, should begin by enhancing support to the African Union mission in Darfur. Conscience dictates that the world's most recent genocide be the first and chief beneficiary of the US military's enhanced interest in Africa. Beyond that, the European Union mission in Congo, as well as fragile national forces in Africa's North-central and Horn regions, are sorely in need of US military logistics, communications, and intelligence support.

With the creation of Africom, the Pentagon has taken a laudable if overdue step towards recognizing that poverty, underdevelopment and instability threatens US security. The next step is to make Africom an active and effective agent of stability throughout the continent. Now to you, General Ward. We're anxious to see what you do with your new command.

The new muscle of international justice

While newspapers around the world have been recording images of Russia's resurgent military might, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has been flexing new muscle of a very different, multilateral kind. In May, former Congolese strongman Jean-Pierre Bemba was arrested on ICC charges of crimes against humanity. Last month, the Court for the first time indicated a sitting head of state, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. And most recently, Radovan Karadzic, the infamous genocidaire of the Balkan Wars, was turned over to the ICTY to stand charges.

Not since the days of Nuremberg have so many of the world's most prolific murderer-tyrants been called to justice by the international community. It heralds a promising trend, not least because the United States, ever suspicious of international justice, has not stood in the way: it elected not to block Bashir's indictment before the Security Council. Moreover, the recent show of force by international judicial institutions sends a powerful signal that murderous regimes can no longer hide nor escape judgment for their crimes.

If it lasts, that is. Bashir remains ensconced in power, and the kind of theatrics that deprived Slobodan Milosevic's victims of justice may yet derail the trials of Bemba and Karadzic. To prevent that, the world's governments, America's in particular, need to encourage the pursuit of justice. The world's international courts are to be congratulated for their new-found resolve. We can only hope that its governments will follow suit.

Bashir: Indicted, for Better or Worse

Yesterday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced its first indictment of a sitting head of state. Fittingly, its object was Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, whose government has overseen a persistent campaign of genocide and persecution in the country's western Darfur region. While Darfur advocates around the world will no doubt welcome what many see as well-deserved punishment, there is cause for concern that Bashir's indictment will slow an already faltering peace process. The Sudanese government has pledged to retaliate for the indictment, and Western aid workers and officials may well be the first casualties. While they are unlikely to be physically harmed, Khartoum has proved to be both willing and able to disrupting international aid efforts to Sudan's conflict-ridden western and southern regions.

More importantly, however, the participation of the Sudanese government is crucial to formulating a lasting peace in Sudan. President Bashir richly deserves to be judged for crimes against humanity, as the ICC indictment charges. But the indictment is nonetheless a serious affront to the Sudanese government, and delicate diplomacy will be necessary to ensure that it does not stall progress on future peace agreements. We can only hope that peace and justice, so often complimentary, are not in this case antagonists.