The man clearly has links to Kerry and to people in his office. In the later parts it sounds like his motivation is good - and the rest of the article pretty much contradicts the
implications of the first sentence. By that, I mean there is a natural implication that the fund raiser intends to work against allegations of genocide and war crimes. From the rest of the article it is clear that Crowe is NOT working on that and, in fact, is what he wants to do is that of a typical lobbyist. In addition, the second sentence mentions meeting with Democrats - but not that none supported him. (Then they got quotes on the generic idea of Sudan having a lobbyist in DC.)
It seems that Kerry aides, though not Kerry himself, indirectly had a part - but it was indirect and clearly motivated to help Darfur and movements to peace.
The lobbying proposal arose out of discussions this year between aides to Kerry, who led a congressional delegation to Khartoum in April, and Bob Arnot, a physician and television personality active in humanitarian causes, according to several of those involved in the debate. Arnot then approached Crowe with the idea, leading to an application this summer with the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which must approve any U.S. firm doing business with Sudan.
<snip>
Crowe said in an interview that he did not seek to work for Sudan but was convinced by Arnot and Kerry's office that a deal could be arranged that would move the country toward peace. He said the proposed agreement would require Sudan to take tangible steps for the relationship to continue, including allowing the return of humanitarian organizations to Darfur; allowing free and fair elections; and increasing cooperation with the United States on terrorism and other issues.
"We've been very, very careful in terms of our discussions with Sudan in terms of being able to help them," Crowe said. "We've been very specific on guidelines that they would have to meet."
To me, this sounds like it is well motivated - but it really seems premature - until the international charges are dealt with. Kerry's office had this statement, which I think is good:
Kerry spokesman Frederick Jones said in a statement that the senator "has had no knowledge of Nelson Mullins' interest in representing Sudan." Jones said a staff member talked with Arnot about the need for Sudan to communicate with policymakers if the nation is intent on reform, but he said a different staffer later told Crowe that lobbying for Sudan "was a bad idea."
"While it's up to the Obama administration whether the Sudanese government can be represented in Washington, the administration should ensure that any representation is not simply to repair an image but to make concrete progress on the peace process and on the humanitarian situation," the statement said.
The last paragraph details the response of Democratic Congressmen Crowne met with - McGovern opposed it and Capuano said it would not work if it was to improve their image.
So, what I see is:
1) Crowne did nothing wrong. His motives are laudable. He is following the law - and has done absolutely nothing yet for Sudan.
2) Not one Democratic legislator has backed Crowne yet - which you do not find until you read the whole story.
3) Kerry himself has not been involved.
That leaves just the Kerry staff. A staff member speaking to Arnot, who was involved on humanitarian issues, was not wrong. It also sounds like what Crowne is seeking to do is NOT lobbying for Sudan, but trying to help Darfur and all of Sudan - two very very poor countries.
Reading it carefully, Crowne, who has done nothing wrong, seems to be getting smeared here. (Note that hidden in the article is the comment that Bud Mcfarlane, Reagan aide has a $1.3 million contract with Quatar arranged by Sudanese officials to represent Sudan in talks in Darfur. Now, HE is a lobbyist and he is actually representing Sudan.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
