A history of inaction

When viewed holistically, Obama has been a decent president.

He’s kept us from plunging off the deep end economically. His administration passed sizeable health care reform, albeit without the public option. The combat mission in Iraq, at the very least, has been brought to a close.    

But in one area his policies have been as deplorable as any past president, if not more so. Obama has failed tremendously in his handling of human rights issues across the board, from Burma, to Darfur, to waiving sanctions for countries that force children into the military.

Human rights have never been a priority for the White House — politicians will apologize after the fact, but during an actual atrocity, administrators will stand idly by, effectively giving whatever genocidal regime at the time a tacit go-ahead.

Why? They can’t be bothered to follow through with campaign promises, perhaps, or it will hinder foreign relations. (Hey, Turkey, it’s okay, we don’t consider the massacre of more than a million Armenians genocide.)

Then there is the stigma attached to the term genocide.

People easily disbelieve and disregard the sheer horror and scale of mass atrocity despite its occurrence throughout all of mankind’s history. It is an easy stance to maintain given the distance between most people and the event itself.

Without public outcry for such scorned issues as human rights, politicians are largely not held accountable for inaction despite the tremendous and laudable activism of the minority. Deplorable, yes, but should everyday citizens be responsible?

In an introduction to the book “Not on our Watch,” then-Senator Obama basically writes that the American public must tell our representatives exactly what to do (regarding human rights policy) and that the full burden of action is on our shoulders.

This is terribly faulty logic — we elect representatives to govern and use their best judgement, not to treat every issue as a referendum. In fact, the best representatives do not always follow the will of the voters but act in what they believe is the public’s best interest.

Obama, like so many others, has retreated cringing from campaign promises of strong sanctions.

Instead, he increasingly opts for the naive position of his appointed envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration. Gration said, “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries, they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”

The Obama administration’s policy has gradually shifted, first from a policy of incentives and pressures and now, with all the big sticks having been picked up, to a massive carrot and a few measly twigs.

Even writer Samantha Power, who has long pressed for strong intervention measures, has flip-flopped while working for the administration.

Now, she totes “naming and shaming” as more effective than sanctions, attempting to defend the administration’s removal of sanctions against countries using child soldiers.

There were already waivers within the legislation, which was meant to go into effect last month.

“By giving a blanket waiver, the administration has also given up the significant leverage that the law provides to influence the child recruitment practices of its military allies,” 29 leading human rights organizations wrote to Obama.

President Bush, at least, managed to bring an end to the war in Sudan with the 2005 peace agreement.

But with the independence referendum for south Sudan fast approaching and tensions high, civil war might break out again, and the current namby-pamby policies are unlikely to prevent it. If so, the human toll will be devastating.

In Burma, meanwhile, United States sanctions will be ineffective until the administration convinces others to join in, as China and Russia are pumping money into the country for their natural resources.

Obama has, however, recently decried the rigged Burmese elections and called for the release of political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, but it is unlikely he has the leverage to effect any real change.

It is unlikely he will change his policies, and it is true that economic struggles and other national issues keep his hands full — but at least we as citizens can be cynical idealists.

I believe American leadership will not significantly change its human rights stance in our lifetime, but taking small actions — joining the IU chapter of STAND, or simply voicing your concerns to your representatives — will have an accumulative effect. It’s a war of attrition.


E-mail: celgrund@indiana.edu