Time for Action in Darfur
As someone who has done a lot of research and writing about the genocide in Cambodia, I’m feeling a worrying sense of deja-vu all over again as I read the coverage of Darfur. There, as today, people over time largely agreed that genocide was taking place, but weren’t willing to do what it took to stop it. There, as at some point in the future in Sudan, people will come to grave sites and give eloquent speeches about how the world failed to respond. Historians will again write books, like Samantha Power’s The Problem from Hell, that explore how well meaning people weren’t willing or able to do what it took to end the genocide, even those who knew full well what was going on. Some things in life are difficult. This one is simple. With bipartisan support the United States must:
- Either secure UN Security Council support for a humanitarian intervention in Sudan and the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force or, if that will not be possible due to Chinese resistance, to seek the same authorizations and commitment through NATO;
- Once force has been authorized, give the Sudanese government one last chance to support the peaceful deployment of a UN or NATO mission.
Making decisions like these is always difficult, but it always seems so clear that something should have been done at the memorials later held in concentration camps and killing fields. President Bush has taken all kinds of moralistic positions on issues that may not have merited them, but this is one case where the President’s sense of morality ought to be a national asset. It’s incumbent upon Democrats and Republicans alike to catalyze this process.
No related posts.
I agree about the gravity of the situation in Darfur, and the author makes a good point concerning our tendency to lament at memorials after a genocide, rather than act to stop it. But I was wondering if Mr. Metzl has read Eric Posner’s op-ed “The Humanitarian War Myth” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901435.html). If not, I’m sure he’s familiar with the line of thought that says outside armed intervention tends to exacerbate the loss of innocent lives, particularly when the genocidal government uses human shields. This is a serious obstacle to humanitarian intervention, but I hate the idea of simply standing on the sidelines during a tragedy like Darfur.
Comment on October 2, 2006 @ 9:44 am
As someone who has worked with an INGO in Darfur for over a year now, I can say with some authority that the international humanitarian community realizes there are no good options for solving the crisis in Darfur. Diplomacy is getting us nowhere. Rebel groups are refusing to talk. A U.N. PKO sounds good, but most humanitarian workers will confess that it would bring more harm than good to the situation. Local militia do not differentiate between international humanitarian and military actors. We are all foreigners and trespassors to them. There is an ever growing hostility towards the U.N. here by many groups (IDP’s and janjaweed alike) and a large presence of UN peacekeepers would exacerbate it, especially if they don’t come with a robust enough mandate. At this point, a stronger and larger AU force with the appropriate Chapter 7 mandate appears to be the best option from where I’m standing here on the ground. If only it appeared possible.
Comment on February 23, 2007 @ 3:24 am