“Never Again”? OR, “Only Occasionally”?
Posted November 18, 2006 on 6:56 pm | In the category DARFUR, Genocide, China, Africa | by JeffThe linked story from the BBC updates the naïve reports in major Western media to the effect that Sudan had agreed to a joint United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force. The stories that appeared in major U.S. papers including the NY Times and Boston Globe (see earlier post on this blog) reported Kofi Annan’s comments to the effect that an agreement had been reached. Alas, some deals are not real, after all. According to the BBC report, immediately after Annan’s comments, Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol said that “there should be no talk about a mixed force” and that there would be no UN troops in Darfur. Mr. Akol said that the UN would simply provide technical support.”
There are reports today that Sudanese forces are once again on the attack, working with Arab Janjaweed militia in destroying villages. UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland has been forced to leave Darfur by veiled threats from the Sudanese government and is publicly wondering why the world is watching while Darfur burns.
The last fifteen years have seen two major genocides preceding the one in Darfur. The Rwanda genocide was more efficient: 800,000 to 1,071,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus killed in 100 days. Individual nations, including the Western powers did not find it in their interest to intervene and the UN maintained that it had to follow its rigid rules of engagement, which were in reality rules of nonengagment. The leader of the U.N. mission, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire suffered major depression and was hospitalized over the failure to act and wrote movingly of the Rwanda genocide in his book, Shake Hands With the Devil (read an excellent interview with Dalliere here).
The Bosnia Genocide was less efficient but equally ghastly – it took from 1992-95 for the Serbs to kill over 200,000 Bosnian Muslims. A watershed of sorts – perhaps “bloodshed” should be the term – occurred at Srebrenica when the UN’s 400 Dutch peacekeepers watched as over 8000 Bosnian males were systematically murdered over a period of ten days in July 1995. Once again, the UN forces asked for permission from UN headquarters to use force to resist the genocide and permission was denied.
These examples seem likely to predict the future for Darfur – and the lessons from them do not lead to optimism. Based on recent history and the quality of current leadership, the major powers are unlikely to intervene until it is far too late for effective action (what is too late? 200,000 lives? 500,000?, one million?); some countries (esp. China) will assist Sudan in resisting UN force implementation; and if and when UN forces are there they are likely to be ineffective. Hope I am wrong.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
As I read about Darfur, and all the humanitarian catastrophes that have occurred on the African Continent in recent history, I ache for a different foreign policy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think President Bill Clinton was on the right (or at least righteous) path, when he almost formed a Clinton Doctrine. In deciding to intervene militarily in the Balkans, he was basing his foreign policy on intervention in matters of genocide, and crimes against humanity. Of course over the last couple years of his Presidency, our buddy Bill proved to be a political pussy, and would not follow-up on his humanitarian commitment.
The Balkan War and the First Gulf War were the most successful wars the United States has been involved in, since World War II (if you discount Grenada – what a joke). It is not a coincidence that these were also two wars that were, at their core, morally and ethically righteous. The same goes for World War I and II.
This has become a bit of cliché, but as the only superpower, we have an obligation to do the right thing for the world, not only because we should and can; but because it is in our best interest to do so. The world would understand we are not afraid to use our military when it becomes necessary, and we would be leading by example. The United States could stand for a little international good will. At some point, Africa will become an important trading partner, and last time I checked, they had the Texas Tea. I argue if we use our power only to help humanity, as our priority, we can not lose. If we use force for any other purpose, we can not win – Vietnam, Korea, Iraq.
We know that the current administration holds the U.N. in low regard, and does not abide by any disagreeable decisions or resolutions. The Darfur nightmare gives Bush and Cheney an opportunity to buck the U.N. for the right reasons, this time around. Too bad they blew their political wad on Saddam. He was bad, but contained. Darfur is not contained - unfortunately when it becomes contained, it may be too late. It may already be too late?
And fuck China. Oops I forgot, we can’t, they own too much of our debt….
Comment by Jr. — November 18, 2006 #
I am moving slowly toward the view that the UN is irrelevant - not on any moral basis but on a practical basis. Here is what I think I see: Darfur is a genocide - basic agreement on that, I would hope - UN wants to put peacekeepers into Sudan to protect people of Darfur and the world agrees. Except Sudan. Sudan is then supported by China who has big appetite for oil which can be partially satisfied by Sudan. UN therefore cannot send troops into a country that is complicit (to put it mildly) in the genocide. So the genocide continues. If the UN were to put troops in and they were faced with - Dog help us - violence, and were to ask for permission to use live ammunition NY headquarters could be expected to do as they did in Rwanda and Srebenica - \”no no. Just watch it happen.\”
As for the U.S. - well Bush said he had a lot of political capital after the 2004 aelection nd he would use it. And so he has. On September 12, 2001 the U.S. had a load of moral capital and Bush has also used that. Awfully hard for the U.S. to play the moral edge card after Iraq. It is no longer possible to ignore the ugly realities of the damage done in the international arena by the current administration.
Comment by Jeff — November 19, 2006 #