July 24, 2004
TO HELL WITH THE REALISTS:
Never Again, No Longer? (JAMES TRAUB, July 18, 2004, NY Times Magazine)
In the case of Kosovo, intervention to roll back ethnic terror ultimately worked: NATO's 78-day bombing campaign forced Milosevic's paramilitaries to withdraw. And yet neither the United Nations Security Council nor any other body has contemplated such an act in Sudan. Last month, the council failed to pass a resolution criticizing Sudan. The Bush administration wanted one, but neither China, nor Pakistan and Algeria, the two Muslim countries now serving on the Security Council, did. Now Aza's ability to return home depends on a series of promises that the Sudanese government made two weeks ago in a ''joint communique'' signed with the United Nations.This is surely not what Secretary General Kofi Annan and other worthies meant when they said in the aftermath of the Rwanda debacle that massacres could never again go unchallenged. What happened? Some part of the answer is specific to this one situation. Nobody wanted to provoke the Sudanese government while it was negotiating with Christian rebels to end 21 years of civil war. And as we know from the case of Rwanda or Sierra Leone or Liberia, Africa is not Europe: Western public opinion will not be as moved by the plight of the Sudanese as by that of the Kosovars, and Sudan's own neighbors have neither the capacity nor the political will to intervene themselves.
But that's not all; humanitarian intervention is also yesterday's problem. Though the Bush administration has been seriously engaged with the situation in Darfur, it is, after all, supremely preoccupied by Iraq and, more broadly, by the war on terror. And the truth is, so are we all. We simply do not think as much as we used to about the vulnerability of distant people now that we are so consumed by our own vulnerability. And the war in Iraq has hopelessly muddied the waters on the legitimacy of intervention. Darfur is the first case of large-scale human rights abuse since 9/11; what it tells us about our emerging system of collective security is not pleasant.
It's hard to remember now, but the question of when states were obliged to prevent or limit catastrophic harm was a burning question in the 1990's. Among the defining events of that time were the disasters in Somalia, Rwanda and the Balkans. The great, if very tardy, successes of the international order were the interventions in Kosovo and East Timor. The old cold-war conflict between hawk and dove was shuffled and re-formed, with liberal (and neoconservative) interventionists on one side and ''realists'' on the other.
The President remains seized of this issue and far more involved than any other world leader because it fits the theocon prescription for interventionism. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 24, 2004 9:10 PM
The first two sentences of this excerpt show that the UN was then and remains still an utterly useless organization. On that front at least, nothing at all has changed.
Posted by: brian at July 24, 2004 9:29 PMOn what grounds, exactly, does anyone believe Khartoum will not return to murdering Christians once it has polished off those pesky black Muslims?
'Engaged' in my book would mean doing something. I'm not aware Bush has done anything.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 24, 2004 9:29 PMThere have probably been 20 million preventable deaths in Africa since 1983. Maybe more.
The only reason Clinton acted against Serbia is because he was shamed after what happened in Rwanda. He knew his 'legacy' would be a disaster if nothing was done in Kosovo.
The UN is a death-enabling organization. But the US should tell Kofi that he will be kicked out of NY unless he makes a public address, stating that although the member nations will do nothing to help the people in Darfur, he would personally be supportive of military action to protect those who are defenseless. Anything short of that, and he should be exiled to Sudan.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 24, 2004 9:47 PMHarry:
Secured an agreement for peace with the South, which is Christian and animist.
Posted by: oj at July 24, 2004 11:14 PMAnd the Sudanese showed how seriously they took that by lauching an extermination campaign in the west.
For someone who believes in evil, you sure are trusting.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 25, 2004 2:21 AMWhy doesn't President Bush, make a speech outlining the slaughter in grisly detail, commit so many troops and dollars to Sudan, and then specifically call upon France, Canada, Sweden, China, a few others and especially the Muslim world to commit and fund so many troops (give numbers)on an urgent basis? Then we can all sit back and watch the dissembling.
It would have been a great sideshow to the convention in Boston.
Posted by: Peter B at July 25, 2004 7:05 AMJames: It's a common problem with Movable Type.
Posted by: Chris at July 25, 2004 7:26 AMHarry:
They stopped religious killing in the South. The West is just a matter of race. We did the same thing here. Intra-Christian killing ended at Westphalia but Jim Crow lasted until the 1960s.
Posted by: oj at July 25, 2004 8:44 AMWith such widespread reports of black oppression, including slavery, one wonders why Jesse Jackson has not paid visit.
Posted by: Gideon at July 25, 2004 1:04 PMThe world should intervene, when possible, to protect human life.
However, such intervention shouldn't just mean dumping off a truckload of supplies or establishing a refugee camp or safe haven.
It should mean taking over a troubled region and reshaping it. For instance, breaking the Sudan into two or three parts, recognizing the rump regions as nations, and bombing the dominant parent nation into rubble if they refuse to quit pickin' on the calved nations.
Africa's a mess, anyhow, in need of a total makeover of national boundries, which should follow tribal lines, not colonial lines.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 25, 2004 2:05 PMTemporary pause, Orrin. It is fatuous to suppose the Sudanese Arabs intend to adhere to their agreement.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 26, 2004 12:15 AMHarry:
They're scared. Supposedly Clinton's attack on an aspirin factory served at least that purpose. The Islamic world has figured out that it's a religious war and the Christians are better armed.
Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 7:03 AMIf this really is a religious war, then where are the 50 million dead muslims?
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 26, 2004 11:55 AMSame place as the 50 million dead Nazis. That's not what it takes to defeat an ism.
Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 12:37 PMDresden begs to differ with you. So do Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention Tokyo) - as you have noted many times. Of course, the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred without war, but not without fighting, and not without the preparations for a major war. But the Russian leaders were not going to die for Marxism; can the same be said for the mullahs, imams, and other nutcases out there?
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 26, 2004 2:47 PMjim:
That's the point--we didn't have to kill terribly many of them before they tossed in the towel. Such ideologies derive much of their strength from a sense of inevitibility and invulnerability, merely declaring them to be toast--as Reagan did at Westminster--destabilizes them, while confronting them with a few defeats causes them to crumble. On the other hand, many, many Bolsheviks died at each others hands quite happily and they murdered tens of millions of their countrymen. Islamicism is nowhere near as disordered.
Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 3:11 PMFrom my viewpoint, Islamicism is as disjointed as the loudest voice in the nearest mosque. If there were a Pope, we would know where to start fighting. But there isn't. The purge of the Wahabbi strain may take 20 years or more. And it has to include the madrassas.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 26, 2004 9:31 PMSome people have short memories.
If merely killing a few Muslims would cause them to change their behavior, the Christians already did that in Sudan. It had no effect.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 27, 2004 3:28 AMAnd Sudan changed its behavior--they're killing black Muslims now, not Christians.
Posted by: oj at July 27, 2004 8:21 AMI was talked about 1898.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 27, 2004 1:51 PM