I’m not really very well versed with how the America system works but let’s just say the Democrats win control of Congress in this coming election, what will that mean for Bashir? If the majority of Congress is Democrat, does that mean they can dictate policies or apply more pressure on Bush over Darfur? I have a feeling that if Bush decides to conduct more military campaigns, the one that will gain him the most support from Democrats will be a military campaign aimed at solving Darfur’s disaster.
Bush apparently issued a warning to Bashir to solve the Darfur disaster as soon as possible. Meanwhile our “great caring” leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir announced a plan to disarm the Janjaweed in 2 months. Amazing! Can anyone following Sudan’s news tell me what’s wrong with that dumb plan of his??! Janjaweed or no janjaweed, it won’t make a big difference, not as long as he has the military bombing villages and “rebel” targets in Darfur. UN aid workers already fear worsening access to Darfur civilians. Of course NCP politicians have declared all news as lies and pro-Zionist campaigns against Sudan. According to them security in Darfur is good! Damn, “I bet it is”. It’s so obvious those guys have their heads stuck up somewhere real hairy, dark and smelly.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
If the majority of Congress is Democrat, does that mean they can dictate policies or apply more pressure on Bush over Darfur?
In a word, no. Congress cannot dictate policies for Administration to follow, as the conduct of foreign policy is constitutionally enshrined as the purview of the Administration. However, the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution wrote in, on purpose, one caveat: the funding of Administration policies is under the purview of Congress.
What usually follows is a lot of horse-trading, between Congress and the Administration, when annual budget negotiations begin. It is in this instance only that Congress can actually apply real legal pressure on the Administration to do what Congress wants.
If Congress attempts to pass laws forcing the Administration to give up its constitutionally mandated rights, then such laws will be struck down by the third pillar of the American tri-partite system of government: the Supreme Court. It’s a very effective system of checks-and-balances.
Nice, thanx for the little explanation Finnpundit
Additionally, I hate to squelch all hope, but as I said in Darfur’s Delusions, Bush’s sympathizers are cynically using Darfur as camouflage for the Neocons’ holocaust on going in Iraq: Darfur has the ability of getting Iraquagmire off the front pages (some). The other side of it is that there are no additional Anglo-American resources in financing, soldiering, or moralizing to dedicate to Darfur, as long as Iraquagmire staggers on.
“Additionally, I hate to squelch all hope”
Vigilante, no damage done really
I honestly prefer strengthening the AU troops. UN troops setting foot in Darfur will make them an instant target. They won’t become part of the solution but part of the problem. The US however could enforce targeted sanctions and travel bans on involved politicians. The UN on the other hand is spineless.
I don’t think a Democrat victory would mean very much one way or the other on Darfur. It isn’t a particularly hot-button issue.
Bush’s sympathizers are cynically using Darfur as camouflage for the Neocons’ holocaust on going in Iraq:
Actually, if you’re willing to look past the ongoing distortions in Main Stream Media, things are going rather well in Iraq. Significant oil revenues are flowing into the coffers of the Iraqi government, surpassing pre-war levels. That could not be happening under wartime conditions. And most of that oil is not going to the US, but India. Additionally, China is now interested in investing over $1billion in developing Iraqi oil reserves. It’s obvious that they’ve a different assessment of the situation on the ground than what we hear from MSM.
Mostly the fighting is of a low-level, criminal kind of gang warfare. It would be nice to let these folks kill each other off, but the danger is that - unless they’re repressed by some impartial force from the government - they could (and probably would) develop in organization, thus providing a threat to the central government which, for all its faults, is working rather well. Unfortunately, the only force impartial enough for this task are US soldiers, at the moment.
In either case, what the militants don’t realize is that their continuing activity only provides more of an excuse for an American military presence. Even if all patrols would finally be conducted by Iraqi police and military units, the threat posed by the militants will be used to justify the long-term entrenchment of US bases in Iraq for some time to come.
Uhm. USA has no interest in camping down in Iraq (other than some military bases, just in case).
Vigilante - holocaust? Take your medications, love, you have spittle all over your screen.
And Drima… they honestly don’t give a fuck. Sudan is not extremely important to the USA at the moment. The only possible reason for any kind of intervention in Sudan that USA might have is thwarting Chinese interests, and military intervention is not the best way to go about it.
Frankly, should USA act in accordance with Realpolitik, they should support Bashir and make him dependent on America, through military suport, advisors, etc. Cold War style meddling. Frankly, if I was a USA policy advisors, this would have been my advice. The all-against-all genocide in Darfur has very little direct effect on USA.
Just an interesting article I have found:
This one, by Nobody
You can’t find the U.N. “spineless” in this matter without indicting the U.N.’s muscle: the permanent members of the Security Council. Let’s be real.
Hmmm Vigilante now that’s a good point you’ve got there. You know what’s funny? Some say the UN is an American tool for American agendas and others say the UN is a pain in the ass for America…
Leave a Comment