How did Obama do on his first humanitarian crisis?
UN Dispatch‘s Mark Goldberg wrote for The New Republic yesterday that Sri Lanka — the first humanitarian crisis to unfold entirely under the new administration — has been handled more or less well. His point is an excellent one: the United States has pushed to delay an IMF loan to the country until certain conditions ...
UN Dispatch's Mark Goldberg wrote for The New Republic yesterday that Sri Lanka -- the first humanitarian crisis to unfold entirely under the new administration -- has been handled more or less well. His point is an excellent one: the United States has pushed to delay an IMF loan to the country until certain conditions are met. "With this move, the Obama administration has, literally, put its money where its mouth is," Goldberg writes.
All true, and a good start. As Goldberg admits, it's just that: a start. Still, several points are left dangling.
UN Dispatch‘s Mark Goldberg wrote for The New Republic yesterday that Sri Lanka — the first humanitarian crisis to unfold entirely under the new administration — has been handled more or less well. His point is an excellent one: the United States has pushed to delay an IMF loan to the country until certain conditions are met. “With this move, the Obama administration has, literally, put its money where its mouth is,” Goldberg writes.
All true, and a good start. As Goldberg admits, it’s just that: a start. Still, several points are left dangling.
First, the Sri Lanka crisis didn’t start during Obama’s administration; it’s been going on for literally decades. This most recent episode has been brewing since the government ended a 5-year truce with the Tamil Tiger rebels in early 2008. Since then, the government has pushed the war into a final phase, vowing to finish the job this February in an independence day address. But the short point is: the U.S., and everyone else, has had a long time to see the current crisis coming. It was no surprise — or should not have been.
The United Nations missed that chance, despite the strong statements coming from governments, on occasion. As Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group recently wrote for FP, the Security Council’s “relative silence is a matter for growing shame with each passing day.” Much of the hold up has come from lobbying to member states, by the government of Sri Lanka, he says. And that proves, “how much weight effective council action would have.” In other words: the government was nervous for what could have been.
Finally, while the lack of IMF loan will hurt, we should be under no illusions that Sri Lanka cannot get money elsewhere. The country has recently turned away from its traditional creditors and looked to other sources of cash and military expertise – think China and Pakistan.
So how did Obama do? Yes, not bad. But the conundrum of Sri Lanka will take much more fixing.
PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images
Elizabeth Dickinson is International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Colombia.
More from Foreign Policy
Is Cold War Inevitable?
A new biography of George Kennan, the father of containment, raises questions about whether the old Cold War—and the emerging one with China—could have been avoided.
So You Want to Buy an Ambassadorship
The United States is the only Western government that routinely rewards mega-donors with top diplomatic posts.
Can China Pull Off Its Charm Offensive?
Why Beijing’s foreign-policy reset will—or won’t—work out.
Turkey’s Problem Isn’t Sweden. It’s the United States.
Erdogan has focused on Stockholm’s stance toward Kurdish exile groups, but Ankara’s real demand is the end of U.S. support for Kurds in Syria.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
