August 9, 2004 5:47 AM

How long, how much, and how many have to die?

Sudan Accepts African Troops, but No Peacekeepers, in Darfur

As Darfur's People Die

I'm not one to often pay attention to editorials written by a paper's editor or editorial staff. Too often these are pointless, vanilla screeds written by overfed and over-Conservative white men who care for little more than appealing to their core constituency and selling a few more papers. Every now and then, though, I run across an editorial that absolutely nails an issue. The Washington Post has certainly done it on the issue of genocide in Darfur.

FOUR MONTHS AGO, President Bush urged Sudan's Arab-led government to end the destruction of ethnic African villages in its western province of Darfur and to do so "immediately." Sudan's government put its name to a cease-fire, then carried on killing civilians as though nothing had happened. Eighteen days after the president issued his warning, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell telephoned his Sudanese counterpart to express concern over Darfur; again the killing continued. In June Mr. Powell announced that State Department lawyers were considering whether Darfur's violence qualified for the term "genocide," and at the end of that month he visited Darfur in person, extracting fresh promises from Sudan's government to bring the violence under control. Explaining the seriousness of Mr. Powell's message, Charles R. Snyder, acting assistant secretary of state for African affairs, said, "We're talking days, weeks, not months -- not a month -- to see whether or not they do what they said they would do."

One month and six days after that assurance, the question is what the United States is going to do. The Sudanese government's intentions are obvious: to stall the international community by half-complying with its ultimatums, all the while sticking to the goal of destroying Darfur's African population.

No one reasonably expects the Sudanese government to completely stop the Janjaweed militia. Though the Janjaweed are largely doing the government's dirty work, they are not completely controlled by the government. Nonetheless, if the Sudanese government were serious about stopping the genocide, they would be presenting more than empty words and hollow promises to the international community.

The question, of course, is how long the Bush Administration will continue to fiddle while Darfur burns. This is, to be honest, a no-win proposition during the middle of a Presidential campaign. Look too tough, and you run the risk of being accused of imperialism and/or militarism. Look the other way, and you come off as callous and uncaring about the suffering of the people of Darfur.

In true Republican fashion, this Administration is trying to have it's cake and eat it too. By "threatening" the Sudanese government, the Bush Administration can claim to be working towards a "resolution" without ever having to really DO anything. Bush handlers are no doubt trying to figure out how to delay any sort of meaningful or decisive action until after the November 2 election. How many more people will have to die, be raped, or be forced from their homes because George W. Bush is afraid to take the political risks involved in stopping the genocide in Darfur.

Depending on what side of the political fence one happens to occupy, one might perhaps argue that we don't have a dog in this fight. No, Darfur does not sit on top of any oil reserves, but do we not as the world's last remaining superpower have a responsibility to help end the ongoing and needless suffering in Darfur?

The ultimate solution, of course, does not rest in Washington. Still, there is much this Administration can and should be doing to help create an environment in which African nations can take responsibility for creating and keeping peace in their own backyard.

The United States has done more to help Darfur than any other country; France, which for a long time was reluctant to antagonize Sudan's government, has now used its military base in neighboring Chad to assist Darfuri refugees; the Netherlands has given generously, most recently to finance relief helicopters. But the leaders of these countries should not be measuring their efforts against one another, still less calibrating their actions to avoid the blame for genocide in future historical accounting. The task for the Bush administration and its allies is more concrete: to get relief and peacekeepers to Darfur's people before hundreds of thousands of them die.

The sooner, the better. No one can reasonably expect American military power to be the solution in Darfur. Nonetheless, if we can project our power in Somalia, Kosovo, and Iraq, should the world not have the right to hope for (or expect) the same thing in Darfur?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on August 9, 2004 5:47 AM.

Hell hath no fury like a lord of the manor scorned by a vassal was the previous entry in this blog.

It's a freeway, not a Formula One track, y'all.... is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12