Posted on 05/09/2005 2:23:52 PM PDT by Starve The Beast
The failure of the international community to halt the ethnic cleansing, mass rape and killings in Darfur in western Sudan is a disgrace to our time. For two years the world stood by while Darfur burned. In place of action there was a grotesque debate over whether we should call it genocide.
A little over a month ago the United Nations Security Council finally agreed to refer Darfur to the International Criminal Court. This was an important breakthrough. But the promise of justice in the future is not enough. The people of Darfur need protection now.
While the origins of the conflict are complex, none deny the appalling scale of the suffering. Independent observers estimate 70,000 killed and another 130,000 dead from disease and malnutrition brought on by the conflict. Ethnic cleansing has abated only because it is largely complete. Some 2m people are homeless, many in camps where they continue to be terrorised by janjaweed militia allied to the government. Up to 10,000 are still dying every month.
News of the ICC referral has reached Darfur, challenging the culture of impunity. But there is a gulf emerging between the expectation of justice and its application. It will be at least a year, maybe two, before the ICC even issues its first indictments.
The distant deterence of the law must be reinforced by a new peacekeeping force on the ground. The 2,000 African Union monitors in Darfur have done what they can. But Darfur is the size of France: they are hopelessly overstretched. Ideally, the AU would muster the 10,000 troops needed. But AU capacity is limited. The world cannot restrict its response to what the AU can deliver.
Sudan could resist; China might veto a new resolution. But China did not veto the ICC referral. In extremis, the UN could stretch previous resolutions to justify a troop presence in Darfur. Providing the mandate is strictly even-handed, Khartoum would have more to lose from starting a fight.
The big danger is that intervention in Darfur will collapse the peace deal between Khartoum and the south. This is no small consideration. But the former enemies now find themselves sharing interests in the new status quo.
Intervention would threaten this settlement. So be it. Enduring peace for all Sudan cannot be built on a carve-up between two military dictators. Their accord must be implemented, but it should in time be superseded by a broader one bringing in the people of Darfur and restless east Sudan.
There was a time when Tony Blair might have championed such intervention, as he did in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Mr Blair (like George W. Bush) is now irrevocably tainted by Iraq. But the doctrine of humanitarian interventionism must be preserved. This is the moment for an untarnished leader to pick up its mantle.
And throughout, the author can’t seem to escape the obvious conclusion that the only thing that will help the Sudanese is the use of military force... oh, but wait! Blair and Bush ‘irrevocably tainted’ themselves when they did just that.
So, we need to help the Sudanese right now, not with Bush and Blair’s Nazi military tactics, but with UN/ICC diplomacy that will take years and require a military intervention anyway. Got it.
But there's nothing happening in Sudan! The UN said so! Is Sudan still on the human rights commission?
I noticed in the article, that the writer did not mention who was causing these atrocities. How familiar, how sickening.
Jeff
Liberal silliness at its highest form.
I guess the writer couldn't think of an actual name. How about the Hero of Rwanda, the current UN Sec-Gen? Guess not.
Tragically sad, the world stands by and watches muslims kill untold numbers of people, in the name of allah, around the planet, daily.
Jeff
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.