Barack Obama democratic camp and Sudan

By Steve Paterno

September 23, 2008 — More often, the members of Democratic Party in America are portrayed as dovish and their Republican counterparts are portrayed as hawkish when it comes to American foreign policy. However, such portrayal can hardly measure up to American history. The reality reveals that the past greatest wars America ever involved in are the results of interventions by Democratic Party administrations.

The first President to have ever done that was Woodrow Wilson from the Democratic Party who got Americans involved in World War I. Wilson did not only involved the United States in the world’s greatest war, but he established a legacy of American international interventionism—a legacy that is interestingly followed to date by the Neo-Cons of Republican Party in President George W. Bush’s administration, and to a great deal embraced by European countries. David M. Kennedy, a history professor, captures this point well when he argues that, “Wilson’s ideas continue to dominate American foreign policy in the twenty-first century. In the aftermath of 9/11 they have, if anything, taken on even greater vitality.” Another historian, Walter Russell Mead, says, “Wilson’s principles… still guide European politics today: self-determination, democratic government, collective security, international law, and a league of nations” are among those principles.

Under Wilson’s leadership, American fought the greatest war the world ever experienced. In the American hemisphere, Wilson maintained American superiority through military interventions, occupations, and regime changes. In Europe, Wilson sent troops to keep in check the newly emerging Soviet aggression. He went on to intervene in stopping Armenian’s genocide.

The World War II is another greatest war that witnessed American intervention on a massive scale than never before. It was also the work of a Democratic Party President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt saw America as the “Arsenal of Democracy.” He rejected the neutrality attitude and instead embarked on expanding American military bases around the world. If American military today occupy bases throughout the globe, it must partly be owed to Roosevelt. President Roosevelt eventually got Americans involved in World War II, and his successor, also a Democrat; Harry S. Truman not only helped finished the war for him, but did it decisively by dropping the atomic bombs—the only person to have ever authorized the use of such weapon against the arch rival. Indeed, a convincing proof that a Democratic Party President cannot only intervene militarily, but can also pull the trigger, provide economic assistance and protect peace as confirmed by the Truman Doctrine that led to Marshall Plan and set the basis for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), European Economic Union, and ultimately, the policies of containing Soviet aggressions.

The Vietnam War was also a result of a Democratic President intervention, made central in President John F. Kennedy’s administration, especially in his inaugural address, where he pledged to the Americans to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” Kennedy’s successor, also a Democrat, Lyndon Baines Johnson upgraded the significance of Vietnam military intervention in his administration and escalated it further. The Americans had to find a Republican President, Richard Nixon to reverse the interventionism advanced by Democratic administrations; Nixon had to withdraw US troops out from Vietnam.

Even President William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat who seems to be an exception to this rule had made some unilateral attempts of interventions. The misfiring of U.S. cruise missiles that hit Osama bin Laden’s parking lot in Afghanistan and killing a camel in Sahara Desert in the Sudan are some of the credits that can be attributed into Clinton’s attempts of unilateral interventions. Perhaps the most memorable Clinton’s unilateral intervention was the one in Kosovo where some of Clinton’s aid still brag about it that the Americans “bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively.” Speaking of Kosovo and Milosevic, one will clearly draw comparisons and Parallels to the current state of affairs in Sudan.

Of course, Clinton regretted very much not intervening to stop the genocide in Rwanda and apologized for not “fully appreciating the depth and speed” of the Rwandan genocide. Nonetheless, it seems Barack Obama and his Democratic team is about to redeem Clinton and follow-up on the footstep of their predecessors, started by Woodrow Wilson legacy of interventionism. Obama may naively be portrayed to have said he is going to have tea with the provocatively agitated President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, the message Obama have for the President of Khartoum in Sudan is different, hawkish in style, if you like. Obama pledges, as a matter of priority to hold accountable President Omar al-Bashir and the company for war crimes and end the genocide in Darfur. Obama running mate, Joe Biden is even more explicit in his tone in dealing with Khartoum. Biden proposes that “it’s time to put force on the table and use it.” Biden’s argument is that America is capable of going it alone and it must do so because “those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over.”

Other foreign policy advisors and supporters of Barack Obama are on the record, arguing for unilateral US military intervention to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Among the pack is Susan E. Rice, a prominent foreign policy chief advisor to Obama’s camp. For example, in an article title, “US should act without UN in Darfur” (co-authored by two other prominent figures in Democratic Party, Congressman Donald M. Payne and Anthony Lake, a long-term US diplomat), they argue that there is only “one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force.” They go into proposing that with or without the U.N. blessings, the US military must “strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan’s oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy—by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.” Toting-up to these growing voices, another long-term diplomat from Obama’s camp, Richard Holbrooke, has gone on the record, calling for al-Bashir’s arrest by International Criminal Court (ICC) base on pending charges against al-Bashir for war crimes and genocide.

Given these factual evidences, the Democratic Party under Barack Obama, if elected, can reclaim the legacy of interventionism set forth by Woodrow Wilson—the legacy, which has ever since been practiced in both America and Europe by both conservatives and liberals alike. For Obama, fortune has provided time and place to practice this legacy. The time is now and the place is Sudan. But one will wonder that what if John McCain instead of Obama wins the election, then one will hope that McCain will do the same, follow on Bush’s policy of unilateral intervention, a typical Wilsonian foreign policy. As for those Europeans, Wilson’s ideals are still very much alive in their political culture. They can use it in the ICC by making sure that the international justice system is functioning well to prosecute real international criminals like President Omar al-Bashir. After all, the Europeans were the ones behind foundation of the court, the fact that the Rome Statue of ICC is bearing the name of one of their prominent cities.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]