As Darfur worsens, a backdoor opens
As Darfur worsens, a backdoor opens
Monday, March 31, 2008
Five years after the government-backed militias of Western Sudan began their assault on the civilians of Darfur, the villages are still burning. The world’s message to the displaced, destitute and dying people of the region hasn’t changed much either: “Help is on the way,” they’re told. But while the world pays lip service to the idea of finding a solution, the situation worsens. If no changes are made, international efforts could soon become futile gestures in a growing maelstrom of destruction. Five years later, we face our last decent chance to end the genocide in Darfur. Will we step up to the plate?
Let’s hope so. Because even in a world filled with evil and suffering, genocide is especially worthy of our close attention, though we rarely step back to consider why. The reason isn’t — or shouldn’t be — the mere scale of the suffering involved. Relatively, while 200,000 civilians have died at the hands of the Janjaweed militia and Sudanese army in Darfur, over a million people die of malaria each year. The numbers are incomparable. The greater tragedy of genocide over disease is that its perpetrators are as human as its sufferers. The oppressors become invariably swept up in a contagious and toxic moral climate that trivializes the worth of human life. On a frightening scale, genocide exploits the worst aspects of humanity.
If we’re going to fight the genocide in Darfur, we have to do it soon, as our opportunity to make a difference may soon draw to an end. Over the past several weeks, the violence has risen to its highest level since 2004. The government in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, seeks international support for escalating its bombing raids by claiming that they are continuing to fight rebel groups vying for control of the area. In reality, the chaos caused by the bombings simply paves the way for local militias to ravage villages.
Diplomats and humanitarian workers fear that the situation is taking a massive turn for the worse. In a recent column, Nikolas Kristof of the New York Times warned that Darfur could be a mere prelude to an even larger bloodbath in southern Sudan. “One of the lessons of Darfur, Rwanda, and Bosnia is that it is much easier to avert a genocide ahead of time than to put the pieces together afterward.” We lost our initial chance in Darfur and will, as a result, be faced with putting the pieces back together. Nevertheless, we still have the chance to send a message to the Sudanese government that could both curb the violence in Darfur and prevent it from boiling over into the rest of the country.
And with the Olympics in Beijing fast approaching, the next few months will be the most opportune time to get that message across. China, Sudan’s biggest trading partner, holds enormous sway over the government in Khartoum. With China’s support, Khartoum has successfully rendered past peacekeeping missions ineffective. But while China has responded to domestic human rights concerns by tightening its grip, suppressing uprisings in Tibet and dissidence on all fronts, it has taken small steps toward mitigating its unconditional support for Sudan. China approved a new U.N. peacekeeping force, and in the first act of its kind sent a special envoy to the region. Now with Khartoum stonewalling over the entry of non-African forces, international pressure — on Sudan, and on China — is needed to move the intervention along.
For now we can hold out hope that shaming China, through statements or threats from athletes and politicians, will trigger a chain reaction. By urging our representatives to speak out, we can make a difference. By supporting the decisions of those like Steven Spielberg, who recently quit as the artistic advisor of the Olympics because of Darfur, we can bring about change. As human beings, we have a responsibility to care. As a nation, it’s the least we can do for a people who have been waiting for help so long for our help.
Sam Post is a junior in Timothy Dwight College.
Comments
None 4 years, 1 month ago
A unilateral invasion is not the idea behind the column. The UN has already approved a peace-keeping force, UNAMID. And American soldiers wouldn't even be permitted on the roster, which Sudan President Al-Bashir wants to be as African as possible, so comparison to Iraq is not really the issue at hand.
The important point that the column brings up is the deteriorating stability in Southern Sudan and the possibility of another genocide in that region. The regime in Khartoum has no qualms about using genocide as a means of maintaining power, so unfortunately, another human rights crisis in Sudan is not unlikely. Like the article states, it's much easier to prevent a genocide than to stop one. So maintaining peace in southern Sudan should be a priority.
Finally, the person to do this may be sitting in our own country. Bush brokered the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Southern Sudan the first time around and is desperately seeking a legacy for his presidency- peace in Sudan seems to be a good option.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
one of the tragedies of the iraq war is that it has soured our will to do good anywhere in the world. it would likely take neither a full-scale invasion, nor even a change of regimes, to get Khartoum to accept the peacekeepers and stop backing the Janjaweed. in fact, the situation is much closer to that in Kosovo nine years ago, when a NATO bombinb campaign effectively liberated the Kosovars from decades of oppression, mass displacement, and the threat of genocide. similar action in Sudan might not be clean and tidy, but it wouldn't be iraq, and it's the right thing to do.
even so, the article doesn't even mention an invasion, but merely says we should encourage whomever we can to use leverage against China in the run-up to the Olympics. pretty harmless!
None 4 years, 1 month ago
A bombing campaign in Darfur would probably be the worst option available because the last thing we want is more casualties. Bombing Khartoum would create more problems than we need by inciting the world community, especially China (because as this article states, China has a strong rapport with Sudan).
You must understand that China is THE country that is blocking any form of agreement from getting passed. The war being waged in Darfur is largely economic-based (while the war in Kosovo had nothing to do with other countries' oil interests or economic entrenchment in Kosovo). Without resources from China, Khartoum would be severely crippled from being able to continue to support the Janjaweed. It is certain that, if we can convince China that they must sever their ties with Sudan, Khartoum would submit to UN proposals/peacekeeping forces/etc.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Although I understand the fear for what kind of ham-handed intervention we might end up with in Darfur as the result of Western pressure, and the desire to fully understand every conflict before offering an opinion...not doing anything is ALSO a choice, which should be weighed against others instead of demurring that it's too complicated to even think about addressing.
I agree that unilateral invasion to stop genocide can end up being almost the same as unilateral invasion to find WMDs, but this is real time we're living in here and it's not as if this is a sudden disaster that is going to get a rash response. It's been five years. People have been thinking it over, and if we don't know what's the right thing to do now, we're not going to know tomorrow, either.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
This is a big deal. Darfur is the first of many climate change-induced conflicts. Just as important as it is for us to pressure China and Sudan here, Darfur is a reason to take stronger action on climate changes, starting with a Manhattan Project-level investment in alternative energy and greater international cooperation.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Darfur: Another third world nation of savages in need of salvation at the hands of the noble and righteous North American.
I say we form a coalition of the willing and liberate Darfur before it's too late. The liberation will pay for itself with Uranium profits.
I don't see where this plan could go wrong.
In reality, Darfur is the contingency plan for the now lost cause that is Iraq+Afghanistan. We could not secure the oil so now we must secure the Uranium.
Let's do it when Obama takes office so the liberal half of the country can feel good about funding bombing campaigns in a far-off defenseless nation. The right already had its turn. One half of the country should pillage and plunder while the other half claims ignorance and innocence. Then let's rotate.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
I think it's important to clarify who is responsible for the situation in Darfur. The term "genocide" like "axis of evil" can create a black-white morality that clouds the truth of the issue. Why is it a genocide in Darfur and not an insurgency and a counter-insurgency? Is it really a case of racial persecution, or has this racial binary been imposed on it by Americans? Would an American intervention actually "save Darfur" or ruin it?
I'm not saying we shouldn't intervene in Darfur, I just think we should have a detailed knowledge of the history of religion, race and culture in the region before we storm in as "freedom-fighters." We don't want another Iraq.
Or login with:
OpenID