What should DAC's objective be for the 2008-2009 school year? (Post your thoughts in separate blog entries, for now, so they're visible to people who aren't as familiar with this forum).
My general feeling is that we need to focus our pressure on the next President of the US and the next Congress.
With regards to Congress, there are pro's and con's with regards to all strategies. For the House of Reps, most Congressmen are seeking re-election, and even though these Congressmen are supposed to be the most sensitive to public opinion (due to their short term limits) they still don't hear as much from their constituents on foreign issues (because their constituents don't usually know who their Congressmen is....). The Senate is a good target because it has more authority on foreign issues, but our targets (since California's senators are not gonna be new, and senators from other states without leadership posts aren't inclined to listen) should be the leaders of Congress. Here's the catch with an Obama presidency (and I'd be willing to bet money on the claim that Obama will win): many current Democratic leaders of Congress would likely be considered for leadership posts in the Obama administration. This means that we can pressure them (as they will be in a position to make policy in the next administration) and their Congressional successors (those senators who will takeover their vacated posts, whether they are Republican or Democrat). Those are some of my ideas on pressuring Congress.
For the next president, during the election (as soon as we decide that Bush is not getting anywhere fast enough to make a significant difference in Darfur before his term is over) we can pressure the candidates into promising specific action for Darfur while on the campaign trail. The presidential candidates did already issue a joint statement saying that they promise to take action for Darfur, but nothing specific was promised on how this would happen and what their end goal would be (besides ending the genocide, but there's more to this than that). Also, although they may have issued a joint statement, it's easier to hold them accountable for it if they say something while the media spotlight is on them. When we do this, the presidential campaigns need to understand that this is an organized effort (meaning, once the next prez gets into the White House, they should be prepared for us to be organized enough to hold them accountable for their promises). Otherwise, as the next prez becomes preoccupied with other things, they might forget that there's a political organization waiting for them to follow through with their promises.
We might also want to consider the message we want the presidential candidates to send. The fact that we've got an important War on Terror to fight, and the fact that we're very much bogged down in the Middle East, has been overshadowing this election, and because this affects Americans' views on their country's ability to effect meaningful change in the world, it can be a problem when it comes to taking on another huge issue. In this context, it will be hard for the Darfur issue not to look like a presidential tangent (like Iraq, for those of you who view it that way). But because the War on Terror is essentially a war of ideologies, Darfur is a litmus test for the concern of Americans over global commonweal. In other words, meaningful change in Darfur is a way to the moral high ground the US needs to truly win the War on Terror. Essentially, the message we might want to have the candidates send is that the US needs to renew its image as a global leader in the world, and helping Darfur is critical in doing that.
When the next president is elected, if we were successful in getting them to make a public promise, we can remind them of their promise to take swift action on this issue. For now, I'm out of ideas....
As far as DAC's chosen objective, just keep in mind that we won't be shoving our standard projects off to the side, like humanitarian issues and individual issue campaigns and such. We'll continue to lend a helping hand to other Darfur campaigns whenever we can, so no need to worry about us not doing that. Things like humanitarian issues and congressional funding issues will always be there, but these are much easier problems to address then our long term goal of ending the genocide. So our objective should fall under this long term goal.
Also, as far as pressuring China to come to the table, this to me is going to be an uphill battle with the Olympics being so temporally distant from the next Presidential inauguration. This goal of the SEAL campaign (to get Bush and China to come to the table at the same time, and to use the Olympics campaign to culminate in this effect) is not looking like it will come to fruition, and Allison and Rohan could tell you that it's been pretty disorganized at the national level. This summer, we can do what we can to pressure China via the Olympics. One thing is for certain--the US is the only country in a politically viable position to lead on this issue. And as much as I hate to make China and the world wait for new US leadership, hopefully we can reward China by redeeming its image (in a way) for having taken on this issue and for cooperating with our new leadership on this issue. Obviously I'm being vague and don't know exactly what activists can do in persuading China to come to the table, so perhaps we should consult with John Prendergast and the national leadership for this movement on how to go about this. Let me know if you have your own ideas. The question essentially is, on day one of the next administration, how do we prepare China to be willing to arrange meeting with our next administrative officials to talk about Darfur?
