| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa: Horn |
| The U.S. Cavalry |
| 2004-07-05 |
| Colin Powell has just made a high-profile trip to Sudan to examine at first hand the abominations in Darfur, the western province that is the world’s latest killing field. The Secretary of State’s visit also throws a spotlight on another unfortunate global reality. Once again the world is calling on the U.S. to stop a horror that the United Nations and everybody else have failed to act against. The killing of black Muslim tribesmen by government-backed Arab militias has been going on since February of last year. But while the world’s moralists are in full cry about the threat of "another Rwanda," no one sees fit to actually do something. No one, that is, except the U.S. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been raising the alarm about Darfur--and he also visited there this week--but not until two weeks ago did the Security Council call for an immediate halt to the fighting. This being the U.N., the resolution was toothless. Permanent members China and France are worried about jeopardizing their business interests in Sudan. Pakistan and Algeria, which hold temporary seats, refuse to impose sanctions on a fellow Muslim nation even as it is engaged in the mass killing of Muslims. Rather, the event that finally caught the attention of the government in Khartoum was the Bush Administration’s threat last month to impose serious sanctions on Sudan and refuse visas to Sudanese officials. The next day Sudan’s president went on state radio to say he had ordered a "complete mobilization" to disarm the warring parties in Darfur. We’ll see. This regime is not known for keeping its promises. The ostensible reason for Europe’s reluctance to pressure Sudan on Darfur is fear of torpedoing a peace deal between Khartoum and the south, where government forces have been slaughtering and enslaving Christian and animist Africans. But Europe’s concern is rich with hypocrisy. That conflict, in which some two million people have died, has been going on for 21 years--while Europe watched. Again, it was the U.S. that finally did something. The Bush Administration, under the leadership of special envoy John Danforth (soon to be ambassador to the U.N.), deserves most of the credit for brokering the deal. A better measure of Europe’s concern about Darfur was evident at the recent European Union summit, where one has to turn to page 18 of the summit conclusions to find a small paragraph about Darfur. The most forceful language the EU could muster was "deep concern" regarding Sudan’s "humanitarian crisis," as if what is happening in Darfur is a tragic act of nature rather than a rampage by murderous, ruthless men. If Europe won’t come to the rescue of the people of Darfur, how about their fellow Muslims? The Arab League statement at its May summit didn’t mention Darfur at all. Instead, it reaffirmed "the Arab states’ solidarity with the sisterly Republic of Sudan, and their determination to preserve its unity and territorial integrity." Kamel Labidi explains the Muslim world’s moral failure in a related column. Nor, alas, can the Sudanese people expect much from their fellow Africans. It was the Africa bloc at the U.N. that played a key role in the farce that resulted in Sudan’s re-appointment to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in May. Sudan’s fellow Africans also helped undermine a resolution in April designed to appoint a special human rights rapporteur for Darfur. Yes, the African Union is leading a group of observers to monitor a cease-fire that has yet to take hold. But it is sending a grand total of 120 troops--including a munificent contribution of six from Europe--to monitor a region the size of France. The lesson of Sudan is that the world is a Hobbesian place outside the U.S. sphere of influence. Sudan’s social contract is straight out of "Leviathan"; citizens are guaranteed security only if they abide by the absolute authority of a monarch. The real problem, as everyone knows but no one will admit, is Sudan’s murderous regime. But Mr. Annan and company can’t abide regime change, and in any case the U.S. military is too preoccupied to make that happen. That means we’re left with diplomatic pressure and visits like Mr. Powell’s, which are better than nothing but don’t solve the long-term problem. It is fashionable these days to express distaste for American "unilateralism" and "hegemony." The unfolding catastrophe in Darfur offers a chilling view of what the alternative really looks like. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #6 Randy, AP passed on your report, post surgery, I'm glad to hear you are doing better. Our prayers were with you Frank |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-05 6:45:50 PM |
| #5 God,please let those 3 CVG's headed to the Med before this. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-07-05 5:51:59 PM |
| #4 The black muslims need to be set free. They prolly converted to save their butts anyways. Let us know how that sentence goes. Man I still get teary eyed on that "chicken tied to curb and painted sir" thing you wrote. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-07-05 2:39:28 PM |
| #3 I'm going to use mewling in a proper sentence today. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-05 1:03:16 PM |
| #2 The article's scathing condemnation of the incredible hypocrisy of most of the world is spot-on. Who, besides the maligned-for-sport US, has actually acted to attenuate the horrific effects of the Arab / Islamic cleansing? Pfeh. Enough of the EU mewling, complicit shenanigans, and under the table dealing. Enough of the African "bloc" of thugs and whores who only awaken from their pocket-stuffing trance when there's new Aid money to steal. Enough of the UN hand-wringing prevarication, duplicity, farcical 'Human Rights' inaction, and utter grid-lock of corruption. Enough of the sick twisted jokes of the Arab League and the notion of "Muslim Gov't" and Shari'a "Law" - pure tragic theater, yet real enough to the dead victims and slaves taken. A5545 - I see one strategic advantage to your suggestion... Think target-rich environment. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 12:53:10 PM |
| #1 Set aside humanitarianism for a minute and look at the situation with pragmatism. There are only two strong groups in the Sudan: the Arabs, and the Christians and Animists. The Moslem blacks have no power, are a hated minority, and yet are just across the border from the Congo, which can and will protect them, and to which they are fleeing. What are the two alternatives here? That somehow the Arabs be coerced into accepting them, integrating them, giving them equal rights or limited autonomy? It isn't going to happen, any more than the Arabs would respect the South if it was weak. The other alternative is that Sudan is comfortably split, like so many other countries, into the (Arab) Moslems, and other religions, and the (black) Moslems find a new home with those who *will* accept them, integrate with them, and give them some degree of equal rights. So the final argument is how do the Arabs get them to leave and not come back? It will be painful, no matter what, this ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't mean that it has to be murderous. If that final point alone can be mitigated, perhaps that is the best possible outcome that reasonably could be hoped for. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5545 2004-07-05 12:23:48 PM |