Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What we need is military strength, not diplomatic talk.
Wall Street Journal ^ | 12/13/01 | Michael Rubin

Posted on 12/13/2001 2:36:33 PM PST by Paul Ross

OpinionJournal - PLAYING TO WIN

WSJ.com OpinionJournal

    

PLAYING TO WINDon't 'Engage' Rogue Regimes
What we need is military might, not diplomatic talk.

BY MICHAEL RUBIN
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:01 a.m.

Now that the reign of the Taliban appears over, the question for President Bush is how to confront other state sponsors of terrorism. There are two choices: "engagement" or confrontation. In Afghanistan, he chose confrontation. It looks increasingly likely that the White House will also choose confrontation in Iraq. Yet despite President Bush's harsh rhetoric, Washington still relies on engagement with other terrorism sponsors, which means trying to entice these regimes into cooperating without using force or economic sanctions.

In the wake of Sept. 11, for example, the Bush administration decided to engage with the Islamist regime in Sudan--Osama bin Laden's home between 1991 and 1996, and a country on the U.S. list of states sponsoring terrorism since 1993. Unlike Iraq, where President Saddam Hussein gloated over the deaths of 4,000 Americans, or Iran, where Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Israel of being behind the attacks, in Sudan President Omar el-Bashir played his diplomatic cards well and quickly condemned "all forms of violence."

The Bush administration responded on Sept. 19 by killing the Sudan Peace Act, which had passed the House of Representatives 422-2, and would have imposed sanctions on companies doing business with Khartoum. Nine days later, by abstaining in a United Nations Security Council vote, Washington enabled the U.N. to lift international sanctions on Sudan imposed after Khartoum provided safe haven to perpetrators of the 1995 assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. To further the dialogue, Mr. Bush appointed former Sen. John Danforth as his special envoy to Sudan. Mr. Danforth, who went to Khartoum on Nov. 13, has expressed pessimism. The Sudanese government later complained that Mr. Danforth expected too many concessions from them.

To see how well engagement works, I traveled to Sudan. Because Khartoum restricts the movement of visitors and tightly monitors with whom they speak, I went into the war-torn south of the country, where Muslims and Christians, Arabs and blacks meet and trade in the countryside and small towns outside of government control.

All Sudanese I met scoffed at the notion that anything beyond Khartoum's rhetoric had changed since Sept. 11. Rather, they warned that their government had interpreted Washington's willingness to engage as a green light to carry on the regime's decade-old jihad against Christians and other non-Muslims in the country's south. Indeed, on Oct. 4, Sudanese Vice President Ali Uthman Taha declared, "The jihad is our way and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high."

Mr. Taha's speech was not mere rhetoric. Between Oct. 23-26, Sudanese government troops attacked villages near the southern town of Aweil, killing 93 men and enslaving 85 women and children. Then, on Nov. 2, the Sudanese military attacked villages near the town of Nyamlell, carrying off another 113 women and children. A Kenyan aide worker was also abducted, and has not been seen since.

What's Sudanese slavery like? One 11-year-old Christian boy told me about his first days in captivity: "I was told to be a Muslim several times, and I refused, which is why they cut off my finger." Twelve-year-old Alokor Ngor Deng was taken as a slave in 1993. She has not seen her mother since the slave raiders sold the two to different masters. Thirteen-year-old Akon was seized by Sudanese military while in her village five years ago. She was gang-raped by six government soldiers, and witnessed seven executions before being sold to a Sudanese Arab.

Many freed slaves bore signs of beatings, burnings and other tortures. More than three-quarters of formerly enslaved women and girls reported rapes.

While nongovernmental organizations argue over how to end slavery, few deny the existence of the practice. And, while estimates of the number of blacks now enslaved in Sudan vary from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands (not counting those sold as forced labor in Libya), the exact figure is irrelevant. Washington should hardly want as a partner any regime that is complicit in slavery. There should be very little to discuss.

Some may argue that the Bush administration's new engagement policy should only be graded for its contribution to the war against terror, but even there Sudan does not measure up. As a sign of its cooperation, Khartoum reportedly arrested 30 individuals associated with a number of different terrorist groups, but none was reported to be significant.

Sudanese I interviewed indicated that in the wake of the World Trade Center attack, most Iraqi, Iranian, Pakistani and Palestinian residents of Sudanese terrorist training camps merely migrated south to government garrison towns where they would be out of sight of Khartoum-based diplomats and journalists. Former members of the military indicated that the Sudanese government still maintains chemical weapons stockpiles (allegedly acquired with Iraqi assistance) at the Juba airport, its stronghold in the far south of the country. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, Sudan not only provided a safe-haven for al Qaeda, but it also gave one to Iraqis working to develop chemical weapons, outside the view of U.N. weapons inspectors.

On Nov. 19, Undersecretary of State John Bolton named Sudan along with Iran and North Korea (two other countries with which Washington has sought dialogue) as developing chemical and biological weapons. Dialogue sounds good, but it is no panacea. If applied carelessly, the policy merely absolves, if not rewards, rogue regimes.

In the Islamic world, confrontation may work better than dialogue. As the Taliban were driven from Kabul, Afghans spontaneously celebrated, cheering America in the streets. This need not be an isolated occurrence. When I traveled to Kabul 18 months ago, ordinary Afghans repeatedly asked why the United States did not come to their assistance and force the Taliban away. The situation was much the same in Iraq, where I lived for nine months last year. Ordinary Iraqis complained not of U.S. sanctions, but of Washington being too willing to compromise with Saddam. I was in Iraq the day after a relaxation of sanctions was announced. An Iraqi farmer asked me, "Why does the United States talk about war crimes one day, and reward Saddam the next?"

I lived in Iran both before and after the rise of President Mohammad Khatami. One thing remains constant: Most Iranians are not simply pro-Western but pro-American. This is precisely why Washington should not seek to engage with the Islamic Republic. Iranians see European states like France and Italy that encourage engagement as merely seeking to appease the ayatollahs in order to make a quick buck. They see Washington as standing on principle. After all, when the hard-liners control almost all import-export trade in Iran, only a fool would believe that investment in Iran does anything but hurt the true proponents of reform. Any new business with Iran will simply accelerate completion of the Islamic Republic's nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile programs.

Secretary of State Colin Powell should remember what happened in 1999, when Britain renewed diplomatic relations with Libya in response to dictator Moammar Gadhafi's alleged moderation: Within months, British authorities had confiscated 32 crates of missile parts that Mr. Gadhafi had attempted to use to advance his weapons program. Let's not make the same mistake now.

Washington should not negotiate with rogue regimes, at least not until they move beyond mere rhetoric and unilaterally cease all weapons proliferation and terror sponsorship without precondition. Perhaps State Department bureaucrats believe they can be party to a great compromise in Sudan or Iran, but in Khartoum and Tehran the people know the truth will be quite the opposite. As one Sudanese Arab merchant put it, "If America wants Sudan to be a friend, they should not talk to Omar. They should just end his jihad."
Mr. Rubin is an adjunct scholar of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a fellow of Hebrew University's Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations.

Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

    



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/13/2001 2:36:33 PM PST by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
I am amazed by the stupidity of some authors. Most of the Muslim world hates us. Even in Saudi Arabia and Egypt the Muslims hate us.

There are 60 Muslims for every American. Plus the muslims control most of the world oil. If we took them on in military confrontation what would we use for fuel for our ships and planes? Would be retrofit our B-52s with huge rubber bands? Perhaps we could retrofit our aircraft carriers so we could row them to battle.

The fact is we have no choice but to try to divide and conquer. Tom Daschles opposition to drilling for our own oil puts us each day into more of a situation where the Muslims will have us in their control. Their oil will control our economy and our ability to make war on them.

We could not even Nuke all the nations that harbor terrorists. That much nuclear force would destroy us as well as them.

What we have to do is move one step at a time.. One rogue nation at a time and hope to eventually prevail.

Tom Daschle by preventing development of our own oil has done more for the Militant Muslim cause and than all the Osama bin Ladens that will ever live.


2 posted on 12/13/2001 2:48:09 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
I should like to remind everyone that The United Nations recently kicked the US off of the Human Rights Panel.

Wanna guess who they picked as a replacement? SUDAN!

Not only are we ourselves tolerant of these degenerates, the UN is giving them their seal of approval! Whatever that's worth.
3 posted on 12/13/2001 3:56:56 PM PST by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
There are 60 Muslims for every American.

What's that, Million Man Math? Lest see, over 250 million Americans, times 60 is over 15 billion Muslims? Huh?

Plus it's simply not true that they all hate us. A sizable number do. A sizable number also admire us. Some both hate and admire us. Moreover it sounds like the author has first hand experience. What is mostly true is that in counties where the government is allied to the US those who hate the government hate us. Where the government is hostile to the US (e.g. Iran) those who hate the government like us.

4 posted on 12/13/2001 4:02:06 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
60 for every one american I didn't know they had colonized space yet given that there are not yet 18 billion people on Earth. The are more than a billion Muslim I estimate its somewhere between 4 or 5 muslims for every American. We can live on less oil for the duration fo the very short military campaign to secure the Saudi Oil Fields.
5 posted on 12/13/2001 5:17:00 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
The senate democrats have no idea what security is.. If they can instigate another terrorist attack they will think they can blame Bush...
6 posted on 12/13/2001 5:21:17 PM PST by mbb bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
" We could not even Nuke all the nations that harbor terrorists. That much nuclear force would destroy us as well as them. "

You only have to nuke the FIRST country.

7 posted on 12/13/2001 5:22:47 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
" What we have to do is move one step at a time.. One rogue nation at a time and hope to eventually prevail. "

This seems to be the correct policy, and I hope the one we are pursuing. These people only understand one thing, force. We have the reason and the ability to do this now, we may not have those in alignment in the future.

8 posted on 12/13/2001 5:25:59 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson