This blog post is taken from Michael Kleinman's change.org blog on humanitarian relief

There have been a number of articles recently providing advice about how the new U.S. administration should address the crisis in Darfur.

For instance, the Enough Project, Save Darfur and the Genocide Intervention Network recently issued A Peace Surge for Sudan, an open letter to President-Elect Obama with a number of specific policy recommendations. (For a summary, see the recent post by my co-blogger Michelle.)

Yet to get a sense of what an Obama Administration might actually do, it's useful to take a moment and look back at some of the statements he made over the course of the campaign, and even before.

In the second Presidential debate, Obama offered the outlines of an Obama Doctrine, of when he would intervene in a humanitarian crisis. He said the following:

"So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies."

The Obama Doctrine seems to say that the United States has a moral obligation to respond, but a measured moral obligation - idealism tempered by realpolitick. Hence the emphasis on working in partnership with others.

Besides the importance of working with allies, he also mentioned two specific steps he would take. First, providing logistical support to the existing AU-UN peacekeeping force, and second imposing a no-fly zone.

Obama has consistently advocated this sort of measured approach. In 2004, he called for sanctions against Sudan's leaders and oil industry, as well as U.S. logistical support for a peacekeeping force. He reiterated both the need for sanctions (in conjunction with the EU) and the importance of U.S. support for UN peacekeepers in a November 2007 interview with Save Darfur.

In addition, he recently took a strong line against President Bush's negotiations with Sudan to remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. According to Obama: "This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments." He has also spoken in favor of divestment.

It's important to note that though he spoke in favor of a no-fly zone during the second debate, his other comments on the subject have been more ambiguous. He was the co-sponsor of a 2006 bill supporting a no-fly zone, and then again called for a no-fly zone in a May 2007 statement. Yet he was more hesitant in November 2007, saying that as some NGOs oppose a no-fly zone, he would have to evaluate the pros and cons before making a decision.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden has taken a stronger line in the past - in April 2007, he said "I would use American force now". During the Vice Presidential debate, however, he advocated a more measured approach, with a focus on implementing a no-fly zone and supporting the AU-UN peacekeeping force:

"I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It's within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we're willing to take a hard stand. We can, I've been in those camps in Chad. I've seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide."

He also outlined his own vision of when he thinks the US should intervene militarily:

"The line that should be drawn is whether we A, first of all have the capacity to do anything about it number one. And number two, certain new lines that have to be drawn internationally. When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack's view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all."

A statement which seems to indicate that Biden would be more willing to use force unilaterally, at least compared to Obama's statement above, which focuses more on the importance of working with allies.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.