Saturday, February 25, 2006

The Latest on Darfur

I've been following the tragic situation in Darfur, Sudan for about a year and a half now, and despite increased international attention, the situation seems to only be getting worse. I was somewhat hopeful about a year ago when the New York Times and Washington Post among other prominent newspapers turned the spotlight on the ongoing suffering in that region. The media attention caused members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, to weigh in on the tragedy from the floor of Congress. Unfortunately, it seems their impassioned speeches were only for the benefit of a C-Span sound-bite in the hopes of making the evening news because as far as I can see, Congress has done next to nothing in respect to Darfur in the last year.

The Bush administration took the bold move of labeling the atrocities in Darfur as "genocide" and vowed to take steps to ameliorate the situation. To the administration’s credit, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick has actually been on the ground in Darfur four times in the last year and the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has been pressuring the UN to get more involved. Nevertheless, nothing concrete has been done. They talk a good game, but in the end, things are clearly getting worse.

Currently, the only organization that can claim to be really taking action in Darfur is the African Union, which has maintained a small force in the region for quite some time. The AU's 760 troops are hardly enough to bring about peace in an area the size of Italy - even with some airborne assistance from NATO - but at least they're giving it a shot. Credit can also be given to Nigeria, which is positioning itself as a major political player in Africa, a role heretofore played almost exclusively by the South Africans. By hosting peace talks among the government and the warring groups, the Nigerians have been stepping up to the plate in terms of finding African solutions to African problems.

Back to the US, there are finally talks in the UN of getting some UN boots on the ground in Darfur. The UN already has a number of blue helmets in southern Sudan, but it currently has no presence in Darfur. Championing UN involvement in the region is the United States. Like always, the main hurdles to any action taken by the Security Council are Russia and China (and sometimes France). I don't know where Russia stands on the issue, but I just read recently that the Chinese are beginning to warm up to the idea. If China lends its support, or at least doesn't oppose it, it would be a huge step in the right direction. But even if we got the support of all of the permanent members of the Council, it would be quite some time before we began to see UN troops on the ground. First, they would have to assess the necessary level of involvement, and then they would have to get countries to provide troops and then, of course, they would have to figure out how they're going to pay for it. It could be another year before all of the details are worked out, and in the meantime, Darfurians will continue to be raped and murdered and forced from their homes. Until the issues are worked out, there is some talk of simply providing African Union troops with blue helmets and maybe providing increased logistical and air support from NATO and possibly the European Union. There is also talk of NATO simply taking over operations there. I'd be interested in seeing whether the French would go along with that. Even though they're no longer really a part of NATO, I'm sure they would make their voices heard if they oppose. With Merkel running things in Berlin now, I'm sure gaining German support won't be an issue.

Originally, I fully commended the Bush Administration in finally doing something right and using its might and power and resources to actually try to make the world a little more peaceful instead of pissing everybody off, which it's so good at doing. Then, however, I read this article out of China from the People's Daily Online . I used to live in China and while I definitely know that anything coming from the Chinese government or the Chinese media (which are basically the same thing) needs to taken with a gigantic grain of salt, the article does raise some interesting points about the motivation behind the Administration's support for greater involvement in Darfur. It cites the usual motivations that have become all too common with Bush, i.e. the pursuit of oil and the dismantling of Arab society. Maybe the People's Daily is right, but this time, I don't really care so much. As long as the Administration does the right thing, I'm not too concerned with the real motivations behind it. That statement might come back to bite me in the ass one day, but so be it.

Here are a couple more interesting links to info about Darfur. NPR did a very interesting interview with Brian Steidle, a former US Marine who was a consultant with the African Union and now travels around the US trying to drum up support for involvement among US politicians. For a good current snapshot of what’s going on, check out this article in the Economist .

No comments: