A: Clarity. Prevention, not preemption. An absolute repudiation of this president's doctrine, which has only three legs in the stool: 1) don't talk to anybody; 2) preemption; & 3) regime change. I would reject all three. We need a doctrine of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent crises. And we don't have to imagine any of the crises. You have Pakistan, Russia, China, Darfur.
A: Under Bush, America has faced two very serious challenges, one of which they've been a bit obsessed with, which is the issue of terrorism. The other is the rise and strength of China, which they've done virtually nothing about on any front. On top of that, they're obsessed with their own internal economic development, and that results in them propping up bad regimes, like Sudan & Iran.
A: The very first trip I ever took as a Congressman was to Sudan. I worked 2 years to pass the Sudan Peace Act. I believe we have a moral responsibility to act. It is not to send troops. I do not believe we need boots on the ground in Sudan to deal with this issue. But you know what we could do? We could see whether the United Nations is worth its salt and force them into participating in this issue and in getting that solved.
PAUL: The US government has no authority. There's no constitutional authority. There's no moral authority. There's plenty of moral authority and responsibility for individuals to participate. But every time we get involved, no matter where, for good intentions, believe me, we're getting involved in a civil war. Even when you send food, it ends up in the hands of the military and they use it as weapons. So it's not well-intended. We should direct our attention only to national security and not get involved for these feel-good reasons. And this is the main reason why I think we ought to just come home from every place in the world and bring our troops home from Iraq.
BROWNBACK: I couldn't disagree more with that last answer. We are the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and we are ones that can stand up. We had declared years ago in Rwanda: Never again. And what is happening? It is happening again.
A: The outside troops, UN and African Union, are not getting the job done because they're garrisoned far away from the villages that get hammered by the Janjaweed. The troops always get there too late. What we probably need to do is get a humanitarian corridor driven up through that vast country, where we have armed convoys, UN convoys or African Union convoys to get food and medicine to those people that need it most.
PAUL: The US government has no authority. There's no constitutional authority. There's no moral authority. There's plenty of moral authority and responsibility for individuals to participate. But every time we get involved, we're getting involved in a civil war. Even when you send food, it ends up in the hands of the military and they use it as weapons.
BROWNBACK: I couldn't disagree more with that last answer. We are the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and we are ones that can stand up. And we need to stand up in the face of second genocide when we had declared years ago in Rwanda: Never again. And what is happening? It is happening again. And it's not just the first genocide that's taken place in Sudan, it's the second. We need to divestiture campaigns. We need to support the African Union troops there. We don't need to put our own troops. We need to provide food and medicine as well.
A: I think we have some role to play in it, but I guess what disturbs me even more, we have not even addressed the genocide that's going on and the infanticide in our own country with the slaughter of millions of unborn children. Yes, we ought to be involved in Darfur. But you know something? There are a lot of people in America that don't think the only poverty is in Darfur--understand there's poverty in the Delta.
A: China is a strategic competitor. And we've got to be tougher on China when it comes to human rights and trade. We've got to say to China: Stop fooling around with currency. Find ways to be more sensitive to your workers, and you've got to do more, China, in the area of human rights around the world, like put pressure on the Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur. We have to have a relationship that involves both strategic competition and common interests.
A: Absolutely, positively. Look, I'm so tired of this. I heard the same arguments after I came back from meeting with Milosevic: We can't act; we can't send troops there. Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can. We should now. Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over. 2500 American troops can stop the genocide now. I have called for a no-fly zone, but you need troops on the ground.
A: This is what I would do: It's diplomacy. It's getting UN peacekeeping troops and not African Union troops. It's getting China to pressure Sudan. It's getting the European Union to be part of economic sanctions in Sudan. It's called leadership. A no-fly zone, I believe, would be an option. But we have to be concerned about humanitarian workers being hurt by planes, being shot.
Q: You say UN troops. Does that mean American troops?
A: UN peacekeeping troops, and that would primarily be Muslim troops. We need a permanent UN peacekeeping force, stationed somewhere. Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region. America needs to respond with diplomatic leadership.
A: I agree completely that what we need to do is start acting instead of talking. That means accelerating the UN peacekeeping forces along with the African Union. It means moving more quickly on divestment and sanctions on the Sudanese government, including trying to use the diplomacy to get China involved. And, finally, it does mean a no-fly zone. We can do it in a way that doesn't endanger humanitarian relief.
Q: How about American troops on the ground?
A: I think NATO has to be there with the no-fly zone, and I think that only the US can provide the logistical support and the air lift to make a no-fly zone and the actual delivery of humanitarian aid work.
Q: Does that mean no American ground troops?
A: American ground troops I don't think belong in Darfur at this time. I think we need to focus on the UN peacekeeping troops and the African Union troops.
A: The problem is because we haven't owned up to our responsibilities to a sense of global governance. And so now, you've got a situation where the US wants to go in, but the African nations don't want us there. What's the message? They're afraid of us. They're flat afraid of us.
A: We always forget about Africa. I spent a lot of time on African issues as UN ambassador. In a recent trip to Darfur, where there's genocide, a refugee who had lost her husband said, "When is America going to start helping?" So I pledge to you that in my foreign policy, I will care about Africa, about AIDS, malaria, refugees. I will care about a continent that has been ignored.
The entire issue captured me. It seemed impossible that something so ugly could still be going on in the world, but it was going on. The Sudan Peace Act was passed by Congress on Sept. 6, 2001.
A: It's time for the United States to stop looking at Africa as a place where our corporations can exploit the people. Let's face it, if Darfur had a large supply of oil, this administration would be occupying it right now. We need to stop giving Sudan a pass. They're looking the other way.
A: We've unfortunately, as a result of our conflict in Iraq, have lost our moral authority. And as a result of that, our ability to mobilize the world on issues like Darfur has been severely damaged. But the United States should be able to take some unilateral action here in providing the kind of protection where people are being slaughtered in that country; and in the meantime, get our military out of Iraq, as I've planned and offered to do, and thus regain that stature, which we need to be doing as a nation in this world and be able to build those coalitions that will respond to an issue like Darfur. But in the meantime, the United States ought to act.
RICHARDSON: You know, in the last debate I upset some people because I said we should use the levers on China, on them hosting the Olympics, to do something on Darfur. You know, I believe that fighting genocide is more important than sports. So what I would like to do is, one, a no-fly zone. Get economic sanctions backed by the Europeans. We need to find ways to stop the massive rapes. I was in Darfur three months ago. Today a report by Refugees International laid out a plan to deal with that. We should not forget about Africa. American policymakers should take stands not just on the Middle East and Iraq.
EDWARDS: I agree, a no-fly zone; a security force on the ground; sanctions; pressure on the Chinese. But Darfur is part of a bigger question for America: how do we re-establish ourselves after Iraq as a force for good in the world?
RICHARDSON: What I would like to do is, one, a no-fly zone. Get economic sanctions backed by the Europeans; we should use the levers on China. We need to find ways to stop the massive rapes.
OBAMA: The no-fly zone is important. Having the protective force is critical. But we have to look at Africa not just after a crisis happens; what are we doing with respect to trade opportunities with Africa? What are we doing in terms of investment in Africa? What are we doing to pay attention to Africa consistently with respect to our foreign policy? That has been what's missing in the White House. Our long-term security is going to depend on whether we're giving children in Sudan and Zimbabwe and in Kenya the same opportunities so that they have a stake in order as opposed to violence and chaos.
A: There are three things we have to do immediately. Move the peacekeepers--that, finally, the United Nations and the African Union have agreed to--into Sudan as soon as possible. In order for them to be effective, there has to be airlift and logistical support, and that can only come either unilaterally from the United States or from NATO. I prefer NATO. And finally, we should have a no-fly zone over Sudan because the Sudanese governments bomb the villages before and after the Janjiwid come. And we should make it very clear to the government in Khartoum we're putting up a no-fly zone; if they fly into it, we will shoot down their planes. Is the only way to get their attention.
A: It's very simple. If we have a president, he has to have moral judgment. Most of the people on this stage with me do not have that judgment, and have proven it by the simple fact of what they've done.
RICHARDSON: What I would like to do is, one, a no-fly zone. Get economic sanctions backed by the Europeans; we should use the levers on China. We need to find ways to stop the massive rapes.
EDWARDS: I agree, a no-fly zone; a security force on the ground; sanctions; pressure on the Chinese. But Darfur is part of a bigger question for America: how do we re-establish ourselves after Iraq as a force for good in the world? Instead of spending $500 billion in Iraq, suppose America led an effort to make primary school education available to 100 million children in the world who have no education, including in Africa. Suppose we led on stopping the spread of disease, sanitation, clean drinking water and economic development.
DODD: We've unfortunately, as a result of our conflict in Iraq, have lost our moral authority. And as a result of that, our ability to mobilize the world on issues like Darfur has been severely damaged. But the United States should be able to take some unilateral action here
BIDEN: I have been calling for three years to stop talking and start acting. We don't have to wait to get out of Iraq to regain our moral authority. We've lost part of our moral authority because we stood by and watched this carnage. And if need be, if the rest of the world will not act, we should, and should have already--two years ago--imposed a no-fly zone, and we should have--two years ago, absent the willingness of the rest of the world to act--put American troops on the ground to stop the carnage.
A: Then you have to examine the options. And I'll tell you the options. One is the division [of Iraq into three parts by ethnicity]. You would have to divide bedrooms in Baghdad, because Sunni and Shi'a are married to each other. You have 2 million Sunni and 4 million Shi'a living in Baghdad together. You withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad. You watch the destabilization of Jordan. You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region. All of the options I could run through with you; none of them are good. That's why we must succeed and give it a chance to succeed.
(Videotape)
Man posing as job interviewer: (To Richardson) OK, 14 years in Congress; UN ambassador; secretary of energy; governor of New Mexico; negotiated with dictators in Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Zaire, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Kenya; got a cease-fire in Darfur; nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times. So what makes you think you can be president?
(End videotape)
Q: You're running on your resume.
A: I'm running on my record. And the reason for that ad is I'm an insurgent candidate. You've got to do things differently. I'm also positive. I'm trying to draw attention not just to my record, but the fact that I can bring people together. The country is bitterly divided. We need to regain our international moral authority. I believe I know how to be a president for the middle class, improve our schools, universal health care. That was what I'm trying to get through in that message.
A: We have to continue because it's not just the Iraqi vital national security interests that are at stake here, it's America's vital national security interests. If we fail in Iraq, we will see Iraq become a center for al Qaeda, chaos, genocide in the region, & they'll follow us home
A: I believe we are less safe as a nation now because what has happened is the conduct of this war has so badly damaged our readiness. It has limited our credibility around the world and limited our flexibility in terms of the use of force. We could end the carnage in Darfur tomorrow, but why aren't we doing it? In part we're not doing it because we are so tied down. We could fundamentally change the dynamic in Afghanistan. Why aren't we doing it? Because we are tied down. Saddam was a butcher, the world's happy, may he burn in hell. He deserves it. But in terms of our global positioning, our geopolitical strategy, we are worse off than we were when we had Saddam sitting there because of the impact on our military and the impact on our credibility.
President Clinton used to send me around the world to talk to dictators, either to get American service men out or to get American prisoners out. He used to say, "Bad guys like Richardson, so I'm sending him there."
I was just in Darfur. At a refugee camp, a mother who had lost a child asked me, "What has taken so long for America to help us in this tragedy?"
Foreign policy should not be just about power. It should be about doing something about eliminating poverty and dealing with AIDS and dealing with refugees and sicknesses. That's how we regain our moral authority.
I would do what Yitzhak Rabin used to say, the great Israeli leader. He said you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies.
Just 40 years ago Lake Chad was as large as Lake Erie--formerly the 6th largest lake in the world. But now due to declining rainfall and ever-intensifying human use, it has shrunk to 1/20th of its original size. The lake's dissipation has led to collapsing fisheries and crops.
While Lake Chad withered, intense drought set the stage for the violence that erupted in neighboring Darfur, a war-torn region of Sudan.
The more we understand about climate change, the more it looks as if we may be the real culprit--the US emits 1/4 of the world's greenhouse gases. We helped manufacture the suffering in Africa, and we have a moral obligation to try to fix it.
BUSH: If I think it’s in our nation’s strategic interests, I’ll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that’s why I took the position I took. I think it’s important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like an unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO. So it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.
GORE: We did actually send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. I think in retrospect, we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier. But I do not think that it was an example of a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason. One of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not we can really make the difference with military force, [and] if we have allies. In the Balkans we had allies, NATO, ready, willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden. In Africa we did not. [Hence] I think it was the right thing not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was. But I think we should have come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission.
| ||||||||||||