Secretary Rice: What’s the Real Plan for Taking “Action” in Darfur?
Secretary Rice spoke to the Security Council last week and called for UN action on Darfur even if Khartoum resists: “Our intention – I want to underscore – is not to impinge upon Sudan’s sovereignty. But let there be no doubt about our resolve. As President Bush said on Tuesday, “If the Sudanese Government does not approve the peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must find a way to act.””
She continued:
If the notion of the “responsibility to protect” that we all agreed to last year – if the notion of the responsibility to protect the weakest and most powerless among us is ever to be more than an empty promise, then we must take action in Darfur. This is a profound test for the international community, and we must show that we are equal to it.
Strong words. But she didn’t answer her own challenge, namely, how should the international community both respect the sovereignty of Sudan and yet not stand for the on-going violence in Darfur? What is the plan? Sending UN peacekeepers to Darfur is not just hard for the obvious reasons – a difficult environment, huge area, lack of funds and troops – but because it is ill-equipped to act when a sovereign power opposes its entry. That’s just as challenging when the United States has declared the situation genocide.
If this is a “profound test,” then the Administration has an obligation to offer options and backing.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee should ask UN Ambassador John Bolton these questions on Thursday (September 28), when he appears before them as their hearing witness on “Darfur: Prospects for Peace.” [UPDATE 9/26: Hearing abruptly cancelled! Hmm.] Senator Biden has called for a no-fly zone, along with Committee colleagues Senators Voinovich, Dodd, Chafee, Feingold, Coleman, Nelson and Kerry. Does the Administration support a no-fly zone? How about forceful intervention despite resistance from Khartoum? Doubling humanitarian aid? Giving the African Union forces there increased air assets and support?
These are hard questions that need answers. The Senate just unanimously passed sanctions on Sudan. But that doesn’t answer the Rice questions: what does she recommend the US do to “take action in Darfur”?
Chris Preble’s recent post here about realist thinking is quite related, actually. I appreciate his argument to apply more rationale thought to American foreign policy, such as what will – and will not – work with Iran. He argues against false dichotomies – such as bomb Iran or do nothing. What would he and his colleagues argue we should do in Sudan, and specifically in Darfur? What do realists think about other, sticky not-war, not-peace uses of diplomacy, blue paint and military forces, namely UN peace operations? Is a genocide worthy of an intervention or should the US only support operations where the goal may be easier to achieve, such as in Liberia or Timor (might)?
Peace operations deserve some hard thinking, real attention and genuine support to succeed. I fear that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead some Americans to decide that the US (and thus, other nations) don’t know how to do post-conflict operations, can’t do peacekeeping, and shouldn’t try.
But for now, for Sudan, Rice should address these questions and offer a real plan for Darfur. In doing so, she should point out that post-conflict reconstruction and peacekeeping missions worldwide are not likely to end any time soon – and that foreign policy experts of all persuasions should engage in useful thinking about how to make the chances for their success in Sudan and elsewhere much more likely.
No related posts.
I have been recently amazed by the administration’s calls on the “UN” to act. Here’s Bush’s UN speech that mentioned Darfur:
He says that if the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act. This transfer of responsibility to the amorphous United Nations, I believe, ignores the fact that the United Nations is a collection of countries, with the US being probably the most powerful, at least militarily and economically. In essence, Bush seems to be saying that the institution of the United Nations will be at fault if the genocide continues, when in reality, we will all be at fault, and the US in particular. The UN is a forum for countries to act collectively. As an institution in and of itself, it is relatively powerless without the initiative of member countries. Now, granted, most critics admit that the option of US troop contributions in Darfur would be a strategic mistake. However, the US can provide a whole host of other supports that could make such a force a reality. More importantly, the US must put maximum pressure on other influential countries such as Russia, China, and members of the Arab League to place pressure on Sudan to accept a UN peacekeeping force. Sudan must realize that failure to allow this will relegate to the status of an international pariah. Unfortunately, the US seems unwilling to play its chits on this.
If the UN fails to intervene, it will not be the fault of the UN as an institution. It will be the fault of all the members countries, with particular responsibility to those that are the most powerful members within the institution.
Comment on September 26, 2006 @ 7:30 am
WTF!
WTF!
Impinge! Impinge away!
Jesus, people are being massacred. We didn’t get Saddam’s approval before taking Iraq, WTF?
I got the “but Sudan is sovereign and won’t let us in” response from my senator’s offices when I called to implore them to act. For a senator who voted to invade Iraq to tell me that was as hypocritical and infuriating as it gets.
It really is all about the petrodollars.
Comment on September 26, 2006 @ 7:42 am