September 16, 2004
'TIS NOT THAT WE HATE GENOCIDE LESS, BUT THAT WE LOVE INTERNATIONAL LAW MORE
Sudan peace talks collapse (Globe and Mail, September 15th, 2004)
Sudan's rebels and government broke off internationally brokered peace talks for the bloodied Darfur region Wednesday after three weeks with little progress and no deal.The government blamed the United States for the failure.
Both sides said the talks had collapsed, although they left open the possibility of trying again after a halt of at least three weeks.
Sudan's government --under threat of international sanctions over 19 months of violence in Darfur -- insisted U.S. criticism had heartened rebels past the point of compromise.
Sudan's top negotiator cited U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's declaration last week that Sudan's government and allied militia had committed acts of genocide against Darfur's non-Arab villagers.
“The attitude of Colin Powell and America generally was the main cause of the stalemate,” Sudanese envoy Majzoub al-Khalifa Ahmad told The Associated Press.
“It sent a wrong message to the rebels, and that resulted in their hardening their position at the talks,” Mr. Ahmad said, insisting Sudan's problems “will never be solved from outside Africa.”
This is a clever ploy that is likely to succeed, if not in generating active support for the murderers, at least in tying the left up in ideological confusion. It would be churlish to accuse leftists of not caring about genocide, but, as with most great leftist humanitarian causes, it would be accurate to say they are only prepared to confront it within an acceptable ideological framework, which means the U.N., international law, peacekeeping, blah, blah, blah. Swift action by the United States or any other countries that were determined to save these wretched peoples would be “unilateral”, and we all know what that means.
Neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch appear to have made any mention of Powell’s Darfur Declaration on their web sites, even though they are monitoring Sudan with the attention CNN is giving Hurricane Ivan.
Here is an open letter from HRW to the Security Council, which starts by expressing horror and urgency, but then slides smoothly into dry demands for resolutions, inquiries, etc. No cowboys they. No lifesavers either. It is as if 1930's humanists were calling desperately for action to halt the Holocaust, but only if done under the auspices of the League of Nations. Otherwise, forget it.
If the left was prepared to defend Saddam Hussein’s regime in the name of international law, why would we imagine they won’t mount a similar defense for the butchers of Darfur? They will argue that all would have been well if the United States hadn’t rushed in recklessly to call people names and upset the oh-so-delicate negotiations behind the scenes. When everyone is dead and they are organizing their “Darfur–What went wrong?” conferences, they will finally be moved to action and pass unanimous resolutions as to who the "real' culprits were.
Bet on it.
Posted by Peter Burnet at September 16, 2004 6:43 PM
I'm on one of those MoveOn-style lefty mailing lists that used to complain very loudly about the how Bush hadn't declared this a genocide, generally slurring him for it. No peep about it since he did what they ostensibly wanted.
Posted by: Timothy at September 16, 2004 7:07 PMYou're right it's a good bet. I think early in Mr. Bush's second term he will act accordingly to whats required. That phoney criticism will roll off his back like water.
Does any other country really care what is happening there? Humanitarian wise, I mean.
Posted by: Tom Wall at September 16, 2004 7:51 PMHere's a moral dilemma for you, Peter.
Let's all agree you're correct about the inert behavior of UN/leftists; and, for the sake of argument (since I do not agree on this) that we have a moral obligation to interfere (effectively) in Darfur.
Are you not obliged to act immediately?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 16, 2004 8:46 PMUS statements emboldened the rebels to do what, insist that the gov't stop backing a homicidal para-military ?
What exactly could have been the sticking point ?
Except, of course, that the gov't doesn't want to end the violence.
Tom Wall:
France, Chad, Kenya, and the African Union.
So far, all that's been done is to feed and house refugees, bury the dead, and provide some military protection for aid workers in Sudan, but it's better than nothing.
Harry:
In a perfect world, absolutely.
However, as you may have noticed, the world isn't perfect.
Bush has done bold things in the past, and may yet send some effective aid to Darfur, but if I were his advisor, I'd counsel against it at this time.
If nothing is done immediately after Bush wins the election, then I will join you in scorn for another case of high-minded words coupled with a lack of action.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 17, 2004 1:26 AMAren't you also, Harry?
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 17, 2004 2:40 AMHarry:
Great question. That is the dilemna of our times and I do not know the answer. I don't think there is a nice logically-tight one.
But I tend to say no. After decades of reading about the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc. etc, etc, I don't think it makes much sense to talk in terms of "obligations" or to try to turn sins of omission into crimes of complicity. I don't believe the U.S. has any "obligation" to sacrifice soldiers when the rest of the world is too busy debating healthcare or simply doesn't care, as in Africa itself. There are simply too many practicalities and demands on resources to counch this in terms of obligations, moral or legal. But whether it should be done is a different question.
The kicker is that we don't maintain much moral resiliency unless we do something about atrocities or great moral evils occasionally.(viz, slavery). That means going in in a rage with guns blazing, not staying up late writing memos on sub-committee resolutions or calling for inquiries into atrocities unfolding before our eyes.
Posted by: Peter B at September 17, 2004 5:40 AMMeanwhile, the slave coffles still roll from Darfur to Khartoum....
SLAVES!
INFIDELS, NEWLY-TAKEN FROM THE SOUTH!
STARTING BID $50 AMERICAN!
(Don't touch them! They're prime! They're prime!)
GET THEM BEFORE THE LIBYANS AND SAUDIS BUY THEM ALL!
(Blackbirds for SAAAAAAAAALE!)
joe, my position is that Islam is the enemy of all mankind and we would be stupid to go around rescuing Muslims.
However, if I'm wrong -- as I hope I am -- then it would be moral and appropriate for us to applaud other Muslims (acting as agents of a religion of peace) for going in and doing something.
Save a kid in Darfur, kill one in New York. There's no conceivable moral answer to a choice like that.
So I'm standing aside. But at least I'm honest about it.
If I believed that this demands moral action, then it sure demands it immediately.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 17, 2004 3:35 PM