Darfur: Now's The Time
Matt Leonard
Graduate Student
Department of Cognitive Science
University of California, San Diego
I consider myself to be an active, aware, and concerned member of the progressive movement in America. I feel that like many of you, I have been consistently ahead of the game when it comes to issues such as the debacle in Iraq, the recently-enacted Military Commissions Act, and the overall climate of corruption in Washington. We, as a movement, have remained resilient despite the often frustrating lag that exists between our ideas and the adoption of those ideas by those in power.
And yet, like many of you, I have been painfully unaware of the nature of the situation in Darfur. The conflict has managed to grab our attention every once in a while, but we have been tragically slow to research and respond to the crisis. I applaud the blogosphere for soliciting donations to UN aid organizations, but as I learned only today, these donations mean nothing in the face of the horror that continues every hour of every day in Darfur. While these donations will provide much needed food and medicine to the more than 1.2 million refugees who have been on the run from the Sudanese government, the bitter truth is that money is not going to prevent another 1.2 million people from becoming refugees, nor will it save another 200,000 innocent lives.
So, what can we do? The quick answer is that we can focus on Darfur the same way we have been so vigilant on holding people accountable for Iraq. As we have seen in the last few weeks with the congressional scandals, the American public does not appreciate hypocrisy. Although you and I know that the federal government gets away with more hypocrisy than the mainstream media cares to point out, this is one issue on which our silence makes us equally guilty. From the White House website:
"To the people of Darfur: You have suffered unspeakable violence, and my nation has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you...The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act."
-- President George W. Bush, September 19, 2006 (at the United Nations; emphasis added)
Aside from the fact that it took several years for the US government to "decide" to label these atrocities as genocide, and aside from the fact that the White House has not posted a major update to their deeply buried web page on Darfur since September 19, the most offensive part of the President's statement is the hypocrisy that he has managed to hide from us.
There is no question that were our military not bogged down in Iraq, and had we elected officials who were willing to face the genocide head-on, we would have been able to stamp out the oppressive Sudanese government in a matter of weeks. At that point, it would have been the relatively simple matter of assembling a UN aid and peacekeeping force to act as caregivers during the period of reconstruction. So why didn't we do this? Why were our elected officials so unwilling to move on this? Why are they still unwilling to take any substantive action?
Tell your friends: It's because the US government has been working closely with the Sudanese regime to acquire intelligence on al-Qaeda in exchange for looking the other way on the genocide (see http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2005/0429sudan.htm). During the President's speech to the United Nations, Sudan's UN delegate was visibly laughing at Bush's words. Why? Because he knows that the President's words are hollow. He knows that as far as his government is concerned, Bush's words will not lead to any substantive action, and that as long as the US does not act, the rest of the world will remain paralyzed.
Now, two qualifying statements: Of course, the US government is not solely to blame. This conflict is largely the fault of the Sudanese government and the rebel forces who have both contributed to the genocide. Additionally, I recognize that taking out an Arab regime in a country that has provided aid to al-Qaeda has the potential to further anger our enemies. But such action would not have produced nearly as much anti-American hatred as that which has come out of Iraq.
We are all at fault for taking too lightly the phrase "the first genocide of the 21st century." But it is not too late to act. Inform people about why this violence continues. Make certain that your representatives know that you will not stand by while they allow this to go on. If this election is a referendum on the Bush Administration and the effects of Republican power in Washington, let them know that a genocide on their watch is more important than any of their hot-button issues. And most of all, recognize that even though we said that there would never be another Holocaust, we are 200,000 lives wrong and counting.
Comments
I'm a liberal, not afraid to use that term, and I agree with the writer that we must speak out, contact our representatives and otherwise keep our attention on Darfur. However,this is total blather: "we would have been able to stamp out the oppressive Sudanese government in a matter of weeks. At that point, it would have been the relatively simple matter of assembling a UN aid and peacekeeping force to act as caregivers during the period of reconstruction." The war in Iraq has plainly shown the peril of overthrowing even a unstable Islamic government
Also the correct link to the Global Security article about the link between the Sudanese government and al-Qaeda is Official Pariah Sudan Valuable to America’s War on Terrorism.
let's also talk about the people of palestine, particularly Gaza, the largest open-air prison in the world, paid for and maintained by the USA and Israel
BillB-
I believe that the situation in Iraq is much different than the situation in Darfur. Aside from the fact that we're talking about the African desert as opposed to populated Middle Eastern cities, the nature of the in-fighting in Darfur is completely different. As I said, the rebel forces are partly to blaim for the killings, but with the help of American and international forces, it is likely that the main perpetrator of the genocide (the Sudanese government) could be put down. Furthermore, to say that the Iraqi government was unstable is, I think, false. As unjust as it was, Saddam Hussein's government was keeping the Sunnis and Shiites from doing what our presence has allowed them to do.
Perhaps it was wrong for me to say that it would be a "simple matter," but I do believe (as I stated in my qualifications), that our presence in Darfur could have done a lot to prevent what has gone on for so long without causing a massive insurgency and civil in-fighting between ethnic groups. I would liken this potential Darfur to what Afghanistan would have been had we actually finished the job.
Also, thanks for correcting the link.
I'm utterly torn about Darfur. On the one hand, the situation makes the clearest case for humanitarian intervention in our lifetime. On the other hand, the US military is already falling into disarray because of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq and some redeployment to Afghanistan.
My question is not whether the community of nations should intervene in Darfur, but how to do it--politically and militarily.
I'm more or less in line with Lindsay's position. I don't think the political climate in the US is open to intervention, even with ample (moral/legal) justification to do so. The same goes for the UK. At the same time, the US & the UK could always help in a number of capacities that don't involve deploying personnel.
It's unfortunate that the Canadian public supports the government's involvement in Afghanistan (57% approve). A number of military families have been concerned with the mission's ambiguity. More and more are recognizing that it's possible to support the troops without supporting the war.
That said, redeployment from Afghanistan to Darfur would probably be welcomed by Canadians. Unfortunately, the conservative Harper government makes this unlikely.
I just wondered how many people had seen the latest "Sutton Impact" cartoon by Ward Sutton.
click here: http://www.gocomics.com/suttonimpact/