No One Thinks of Sudan Anymore
A couple posts linked and excerpted here are far more eloquent and informed than I could be. Sudan and Darfur definitely deserve the attention of those of us who care about human rights and are not endemically opposed to working with other nations. Of course that seems to leave our current administration out; it is my hope that a reasonable portion of our citizenry, at least those not already bought off by the credit card vendors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and abstinence novitiates can make up the difference. It is imperative that the community of caring activist souls keeps this issue front and center and continues to agitate for action to end this genocide. Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" is one (admittedly bracing) source of background information on the sorry history of our dealings with genocide that I can personally endorse.
From Foreign Policy:
As the Darfur region of Sudan smolders, human rights activists and a growing number of governments have adopted a new strategy. They are calling for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take the lead by investigating and indicting those responsible for the atrocities. The court, established in 1998 and situated in The Hague, Netherlands, is designed to prosecute the worst crimes against humanity. Given the continuing brutality in Sudan, who could object?
But judicial intervention may not be the wisest course—at least not yet. Those clamoring for the ICC to take the lead want to establish the precedent that atrocities will be punished. Instead, they may be handing cautious politicians an excuse for continued inaction while unnecessarily dividing the United States and Europe.
No one disputes the urgency of the situation in Darfur, where the Sudanese government has employed Arab militias known as Janjaweed to fight an insurgency and terrorize the local population. By some estimates, the conflict has killed as many as 200,000. More than a million people have been forced from their homes. In September, then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly labeled the campaign in Darfur a genocide. In response, the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions and helped establish a small African Union peacekeeping force. But council members have refrained from sending their own troops or even threatening the Khartoum government with force. Meanwhile, the atrocities continue.
[clip]
It is more than a little disconcerting for me to be offering up the idea of US military forces becoming involved in yet another far-away place. However, this one seems far more appropriate than, say, a unilateral unjustified occupation of Iraq or an air assault against Iran.
From New Democrats On Line:
The Iraq invasion of 2003 was a very difficult and divisive test for the United Nations and for the international collective security it is intended to provide. But the ongoing genocide in Darfur is a much easier case, morally, politically, and militarily, and gives the international community an important opportunity to rebuild credibility for effective collective action.
No one, other than the Khartoum government itself, denies the slaughter which goes on each day, or that government's culpability for it. Earlier this week, a British parliamentary committee suggested that the death toll in Darfur may have already reached 300,000, or about four times the official estimate. The number of displaced persons inside Sudan has risen to nearly two million. There are now over 200,000 refugees in the neighboring country of Chad.
Hopes that the recent political settlement between the Khartoum government and the southern Sudanese rebels might lead to an end to the genocide have been proven wrong. The Organization of African Unity's military contingent in Sudan is a good and important step forward, but the force is far too small and far too constrained in its mandate to have any hope of stopping the killing on its own. Likewise, the U.N. Security Council resolution setting up a process for trying those involved in the Darfur genocide as war criminals is a positive development. But it's not enough, either.
It's time for the countries with the will and the capacity to intervene and stop the killing to do so, in conjunction with the OAU force. That means the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy.
[clip]
From Foreign Policy:
As the Darfur region of Sudan smolders, human rights activists and a growing number of governments have adopted a new strategy. They are calling for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take the lead by investigating and indicting those responsible for the atrocities. The court, established in 1998 and situated in The Hague, Netherlands, is designed to prosecute the worst crimes against humanity. Given the continuing brutality in Sudan, who could object?
But judicial intervention may not be the wisest course—at least not yet. Those clamoring for the ICC to take the lead want to establish the precedent that atrocities will be punished. Instead, they may be handing cautious politicians an excuse for continued inaction while unnecessarily dividing the United States and Europe.
No one disputes the urgency of the situation in Darfur, where the Sudanese government has employed Arab militias known as Janjaweed to fight an insurgency and terrorize the local population. By some estimates, the conflict has killed as many as 200,000. More than a million people have been forced from their homes. In September, then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly labeled the campaign in Darfur a genocide. In response, the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions and helped establish a small African Union peacekeeping force. But council members have refrained from sending their own troops or even threatening the Khartoum government with force. Meanwhile, the atrocities continue.
[clip]
It is more than a little disconcerting for me to be offering up the idea of US military forces becoming involved in yet another far-away place. However, this one seems far more appropriate than, say, a unilateral unjustified occupation of Iraq or an air assault against Iran.
From New Democrats On Line:
The Iraq invasion of 2003 was a very difficult and divisive test for the United Nations and for the international collective security it is intended to provide. But the ongoing genocide in Darfur is a much easier case, morally, politically, and militarily, and gives the international community an important opportunity to rebuild credibility for effective collective action.
No one, other than the Khartoum government itself, denies the slaughter which goes on each day, or that government's culpability for it. Earlier this week, a British parliamentary committee suggested that the death toll in Darfur may have already reached 300,000, or about four times the official estimate. The number of displaced persons inside Sudan has risen to nearly two million. There are now over 200,000 refugees in the neighboring country of Chad.
Hopes that the recent political settlement between the Khartoum government and the southern Sudanese rebels might lead to an end to the genocide have been proven wrong. The Organization of African Unity's military contingent in Sudan is a good and important step forward, but the force is far too small and far too constrained in its mandate to have any hope of stopping the killing on its own. Likewise, the U.N. Security Council resolution setting up a process for trying those involved in the Darfur genocide as war criminals is a positive development. But it's not enough, either.
It's time for the countries with the will and the capacity to intervene and stop the killing to do so, in conjunction with the OAU force. That means the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy.
[clip]
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home