Posted on 08/24/2006 10:35:13 PM PDT by Lorianne
At the African Union Summit last month, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir promised U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that he would formulate a plan for protecting civilians in Darfur. Mr. Annan received the plan this week. Bashir is proposing to deploy 10,500 Sudanese armed forces to Darfur. The Sudanese armed forces have often worked in tandem with the Janjaweed militia during Sudan’s genocidal campaign against African Darfurians—Bashir’s plan is for the fox to guard the hen house.
Bashir first promised to protect civilians in Darfur by disarming the Janjaweed back in April 2004. In the intervening two-and-a-half years Bashir has made the same promise five more times, as the Janjaweed have continued to slaughter and rape thousands of civilians. The death toll now stands at over 400,000. Politicians worldwide make empty promises—but rarely are the consequences so deadly.
If the Sudanese government cannot or will not protect its citizens in Darfur, then it must accept help to do so. The African Union (A.U.) force currently tasked with civilian protection admits it cannot do the job. A.U. Peace Commissioner, Said Djinnit, has specifically asked for U.N. assistance. However, Bashir has proved adept at stalling plans for a U.N. deployment. He is muting the political will needed to deploy such a force by framing it as an incursion on Sudanese sovereignty and referring to the proposed U.N. peacekeepers as a “colonial force.”
At last week’s celebration of the 52nd anniversary of the Sudanese army, Bashir stated that he was “determined to beat any forces” brought into Darfur by the U.N. “just as Hezbollah beat the Israeli forces.” These words clarify the true intent behind Bashir’s proposal to deploy Sudanese forces to Darfur. His plan is not designed to protect civilians; it is designed to scare other nations from contributing troops to a U.N. force capable of doing the job.
This week, after months of yielding to Bashir’s rhetoric, the U.S. and Britain finally tabled a joint U.N. resolution proposing that 17,300 U.N. military personnel be sent to Darfur. The U.N. Security Council will discuss the proposal next week. Considering that the death toll is rising daily, the A.U. has asked for help and Bashir’s proposed alternative is untenable, there should be little need for debate. But based on recent history, Bashir’s posturing about sovereignty and neo-colonialism may continue to stall the process.
The urgency with which civilians need protection cannot be overstated. In addition to the ongoing killings by both government and rebel groups, there are 2.8 million displaced people who depend on food aid for their survival. This is a perilous existence, especially now that the insecurity is causing humanitarian organizations to consider withdrawing. Eleven aid workers have been killed in Darfur since May. This week the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that its access to civilians is at its lowest level since the crisis began in 2003. 500,000 of those in need cannot be reached because of the violence. Only in Africa do the victims of a genocidal regime have to continue suffering for this long—with their right to life being balanced against the self-proclaimed rights of their dictatorial president.
Bashir's reign over the Sudanese people is a bleak one. He presided over the death of millions of Southern Sudanese before shifting his focus to Darfur. However, under strong pressure from the U.S. administration, his government was forced to end the Southern violence with a ceasefire, which ultimately led to a North-South peace agreement. The fact that Bashir has followed through on even some of this agreement illustrates an important point: He will continue with his refusal to protect civilians only until other nations place a credible threat in his path.
The U.S. and Britain have started the ball rolling with the U.N. resolution. Now other countries must support their efforts. An unequivocal statement from the A.U. Peace and Security Council to debunk Bashir's attempt to frame the proposed U.N. force as a sovereignty issue would provide a solid start. Such a statement could also be used to diminish the credibility of any subsequent attempt by China or Russia to veto a Chapter VII force out of respect for Sudanese sovereignty. If African nations do not believe that genocidal regimes have sovereignty rights, then non-African nations have no standing to disagree. Colonialism wreaked havoc across Africa, but Western leaders have learnt the wrong lesson if their fear of neo-colonialism leads them to stand by as thousands die under the watch of the government that should be protecting them.
- Rebecca Hamilton is a joint degree student at Harvard Law School and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. She has worked with displaced populations in South Sudan and is currently co-authoring a book chapter on the American advocacy movement for Darfur.
The Asians and Latin Americans could help reduce the stigma that the supposed European master race is helping a people on whom the light of civilization has not shined.
If Africa was to be recolonized, it would be imperative that not all of the colonizers were European or largely of European descent (only around 75% of the United States is of European descent).
I don't think you have any idea of what the term "colonization" means to many people in the third world, especially in Africa.
I do not believe the EU or any other socialistic government is qualified to do the job.
A Christan aid group has saved slaves by purchasing them from their owners for the price of cattle vaccine, IIRC is $80! They had documents that implicated the Sudanese government was complicit in the slavery.
The Christian Aid Group has then freed more slaves than the UN or EU ever will.
If there is another definition of African colonization, could you give some enlightenment? (an actual question, not intended to be rude).
What is the acronym that you used? (there should be a thread on FR explaining all these acronyms to uncomputer-savvy people, among others).
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly
If I Recall/Remember Correctly
African "colonies" as we understand them are products of "colonialism" rather than "colonization".
With a very few exceptions (Algeria, South Africa and Rhodesia) there was no "colonization" -- the establishment of permanent, self-perpetuating overseas settlements tied to the mother country culturally and, at first, politically -- of Europeans in Africa.
"Colonialism" in Africa was mostly carried out according to the "Indian model" -- essentially a "protection" racket. The British (or other European power) claimed dominion over African territories after military or diplomatic threats and then ruled with a small number of temporary European administrators and soldiers in the colony to ensure that African proxies enforced the large-scale economic and legal changes the European powers wanted made and collected taxes on the population to provide for these projects.
America was colonized by the British, India was part of Britain's colonial empire.
Hope this helps.
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.