April 11, 2005
Genocide and Conscience
The MSM has conscientiously continued its advocacy on behalf of the victims of the crisis in Darfur; today’s editorial in the Post is the latest piece calling for serious government action. It shrinks not from using the word “genocide” to describe the crisis, a word first officially sanctioned by the U.S. government. Is that an accurate description? And how exactly should the U.S. involve itself?
A few weeks ago, actor Don Cheadle and analyst John Prendergast wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "We need to make it a little warmer, a little more uncomfortable for those politicians who would look away. Just a few more degrees. Just a few more thousand letters. It is, frankly, that simple." In InstantReplay's post highlighting their article, I provided links for readers to contact their legislators. Normally, that would mean I myself had contacted them; in this case, I could not quite bring myself to. Why?
I have strong "anti-genocide credentials". I am a third-generation Holocaust survivor and I spent a month in Rwanda getting to know a few of the broken hearts left behind from their genocide. I absolutely believe that genocide is a worthy and worthwhile reason to go to war, if doing so has a reasonable chance of ending the genocide.
So why do I hesitate to pull out the stops on Darfur?
First, it is more complex than it sounds. The conflict was begun by rebels from Darfur called the Sudan Liberation Movement (or Army)*, which attacked government installations in Darfur in 2003. Sudan experts generally consider that the Khartoum government's influence is absolute only in the capital city, and tails off sharply beyond 100 to 200 miles thence. Darfur is a good 400 miles from Khartoum. A Darfur rebellion, therefore, has a legitimate chance of success. In response to the attacks, the Sudanese government armed and encouraged the "more Arab" nomads against their traditional enemies, the "less Arab" sedentary farmers. These irregulars (the "Janjaweed") have behaved like raiders from any time or place, visiting pillage, plunder and rapine upon the farmers.
Clearly, violence and injustice is taking place in an organized and inexcusable way. But is it genocide? I have seen no reports of racist or otherwise dehumanizing rhetoric, nor have I seen reports of mass murder techniques, such as chemical weapons, long firing squads, death marches, etc. The high death toll is not primarily from violent killings, it seems, but from starvation and disease among refugees. Meanwhile, the rebels continue to fight back against the Janjaweed, in a battle where there are plenty of "bad guys" but no clear-cut "good guys".
So what should the West do? Providing food and shelter for refugees is an easy call, and we have done well in doing so. Getting buy-in from Sudan's neighbors is also critical, and that has also been done. The troops on the ground are 2,000 African Union peacekeepers, and though this force is clearly too small in size, its makeup seems to be pleasingly uncontroversial.
In my mind, the United States and United Kingdom (which will no doubt act in tandem if at all) have two options. The first is to pursue the current course of multilateral relief and pressure. For instance, the U.S. recently agreed to allow a Security Council resolution referring 51 potential war criminals to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution, despite the Bush administration's opposition to the Court's existence. By compromising in this way, the U.S. can keep the whole world engaged at a low but steady level, and seek to contain the conflict until it burns itself out.
The second option is to break sharply with international feeling and act unilaterally to solve the conflict. This would mean putting American and British Commonwealth troops on the ground. It would be an easy campaign, no doubt, because the Janjaweed would melt back into their tribes as soon as they saw a U.S. helicopter. We could not destroy the Janjaweed without treating their home villages the same way they have treated the farmers'. Since we are unwilling to slaughter entire tribes, this war would have no stopping point short of overthrowing the Khartoum government and taking on a nation-building project similar to what we are doing in Afghanistan. This would alienate our Arab allies (Egypt especially) and whip Islamists, who have long been predicting that America wants to take their region over and make them all Christians, into a frenzy. It would stop the killing and starvation in Darfur, but would destablize all of Sudan, and would widen and deepen the perceived conflict between America and the Arab People, in their eyes.
This second option may become necessary. The Sudanese regime is certainly no friend of the world nor of its populace, and the Janjaweed deserve to be punished. If and when we see that they are truly embarked on a campaign of extermination, we must step in. But until that is determined, I cannot justify telling the most powerful military the world has ever known to take sides in a tribal turf war in the Sahel.
If you disagree with me, please contact your representative and senators. Just as before, I cannot bring myself to advocate U.S. military involvement in Darfur, but I want to encourage those who believe it is necessary to themselves act on that belief. If your conscience disagrees with mine, obey yours - and tell those who represent you.
* The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, formerly the Darfur Liberation Front, is not to be confused with the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, which recently signed a five-year truce with the government, ending fighting in southern Sudan.
Posted by Chops at April 11, 2005 11:47 AMI believe the U.S. should stay out of Sudan.
This is a civil war and an internal matter for the Sudanese government to handle. It’s no threat to us and we don’t have any business interfering like we did in Bosina.
I guess “never again” does not mean anything to actual people running the governments today… I remember Bush saying that Rwanda would never have happend on his watch- I guess he wasnt telling the truth. sigh.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at April 11, 2005 12:41 PMI have seen no reports of racist or otherwise dehumanizing rhetoric, nor have I seen reports of mass murder techniques, such as chemical weapons, long firing squads, death marches, etc.
genocide shouldn’t be subjected to such checklists, chops. by this list, the gulags weren’t really bad places. genocide is one reason to intervene in conflict, but not the only one. i would think that the religious nature of this one would keep you involved…
Posted by: schtaple at April 11, 2005 01:05 PMSchtaple -
I didn’t say genocide was the only reason to intervene. For the same token, the gulags were not genocide. If we start using “genocide” to describe any type of violence, we’re going to sap the word of its meaning.
Also, I don’t know what “religious nature” you mean? All involved are Muslims, and I haven’t heard anyone pitching this as a jihad.
Posted by: Chops at April 11, 2005 01:09 PMThe U.S. has been pushing for action on Darfur and kept the issue on the world agenda. Otherwise the Arab militias would have long since finished their job. We have also contributed $1.6 billion to the Sudan problem over the last three years.
In addition to all that, we swallowed hard and allowed the French proposal to take this issue to the ICC to pass.
Today and tomorrow (April 11-12) at a donors’ conference in Oslo we are pushing for greater world involvement.
We have also to keep on pushing to get other countries to do their share, rather than leave it to the U.S. and complain about the results.
These are the things we can do.
U.S. unilateral (or coalition of the willing) military intervention would not produce a desirable result. I am surprised this even comes to mind.
Logistically, it is not as easy as it seems. The Darfur region is landlocked. Sure we can scare off the local militias for a little while, but imagine the supply lines across Sudan from the Red Sea. Other routes require the cooperation of several countries, some not so keen on U.S. troops. Politically, it is even worse. We are unlikely to get any cooperation from Sudan, which means we are invading the country. We could dispatch the Sudanese forces in short order, but imagine trying to do anything in a country much larger than Iraq where we have no particular friends at all and where all our supply lines are vulnerable. Think of the experience (well intentioned) in Somalia, which is – in comparison – a piece of cake, since it is essentially one long coastline.
Not to mention that our forces are otherwise occupied.
Some things you just can’t do.
Heh. How much oil is in Darfur? For all the talk of giving $1.6 Billion, how much has actually been given and how much is still in Commitee? Nobody will help Darfur for the same reason nobody helped Rwanda:
NOBODY CARES!!!
Posted by: Aldous at April 11, 2005 02:55 PMAldous
Actually the potential of oil in the region is one reason the Chinese have been so uncooperative in trying to solve the problem. It is a shadow of the French/Russian action on Iraq.
Posted by: Jack at April 11, 2005 03:49 PMNice of you to blame other countries for the Iraq problem. You forgot to add the UN to, btw.
Posted by: Aldous at April 11, 2005 04:08 PMAldous -
Jack is absolutely right about China being obstructionist. If you look at the Rwanda genocide in 1994, the French were the obstructionist (some would say complicitous). Rwandese Tutsis today hate the French and Belgians. Believe it or not, America is not the only flawed country in the world.
In Darfur, China, Russia, Egypt, and others are unwilling to ruin their good relations with the Sudanese. While I don’t think it’s time for a massive intervention, I hope that oil politics won’t stop us if, God forbid, that time comes.
Posted by: Chops at April 11, 2005 04:47 PM“I didn’t say genocide was the only reason to intervene.
right, you didn’t. but it’s insinuated.
Also, I don’t know what “religious nature” you mean? All involved are Muslims, and I haven’t heard anyone pitching this as a jihad.
i’m not sure that all involved are muslims. granted, it’s not the same as the conflict in the south, but there are christians and animists in the western part of sudan.
Chops, if oil politics can instigate us into a war, why can’t it stop us from massive intervention?
Posted by: Zeek at April 11, 2005 05:12 PMThis is a no brainer. Stay out of Sudan. Let the devil fight the devil. The USA could really do well. Genocide occurs all over the world in all generations. When evil fights evil and both sides are doing the same thing, just stand back and wait for the ashes to fall. Then we could maybe go in and do humanitarian assistance. Until then lets find someplace else to spend our money.
Posted by: tom at April 11, 2005 05:15 PMHere is my personal opinion on the matter.
The United States should intervene in the Sudan region militarily, the sooner the better. Estimates range from 180,000 to 300,000 dead from this genocide (yes, I used the G word).
The United States’ last straw for justifying the Iraqi invasion and occupation is based on morality - establishing democracy, removing Saddam a brutal tyrant who gassed the Kurds etc. and yet I rarely hear people upset about the Sudanese situation. I can understand that it isn’t on our television screens like Terri Schiavo, but goddamnit it ought to be.
Yes, I’m familiar with the pragmatic argument that we’re overextended and cant afford to re-allocate military assets to Sudan. Thats not a fair analysis though, and reeks of nationalism. Simply look at how many troops we have stationed in hundreds of countries throughout the world, we also have the option of a draft if we simply cannot remove any troops from Iraq. Explain to me how the United States (most powerful military force on the planet, and a nation with a population of 280Million) cannot deter/defeat the Janjiweed militants who are a band of technologically unsophisticated muslim radicals committing genocide against christians? The religious element alone would be enough to draw the necessary recruitment/draftees were the Executive and Legislative branches to call it to our attention - hence creating a media stir. Where is the post-holocaust global consciousness I was told existed?
EITHER THERE ARE CAUSES WORTH DYING/KILLING FOR OR THERE AREN’T. If this genocide isn’t worth killing and dying for… what is?
Posted by: Paul D at April 11, 2005 08:09 PMtom:
This is a no brainer. Stay out of Sudan. Let the devil fight the devil. The USA could really do well. Genocide occurs all over the world in all generations. When evil fights evil and both sides are doing the same thing, just stand back and wait for the ashes to fall. Then we could maybe go in and do humanitarian assistance. Until then lets find someplace else to spend our money.It seems that all of Bush’s rhetoric about spreading “freedom” and “liberty” around the world does not apply here. And what do you mean by the “devil”? I am sure that you mean “enemy,” but how is an innocent victim of a genocidal regime our enemy? What threat do they pose to us? What evil have the committed? The simple fact that genocide occurs in all generations does not justify the act. And how are both sides doing the same thing? This is not a civil war, as our American one was. It is a one-sided massacre on a larger scale than you could conceive. I think you should quit this good vs. evil, black vs. white rhetoric before you actually start to believe it. But I guess you already do.
And in terms of giving humanitarian assistance after the fact, what good is that aid once all the victims have died. It is clear that this campaign will not stop of its own accord. It will continue, and in the end, when “the ashes fall”, the victors will the be the genocidal regime in power. If we do not intervene now, that is. So, then, to whom would this humanitarian assistance go? To those who led the genocidal campaign?
Posted by: Ryan at April 11, 2005 09:54 PMTom,
People used your, “let evil fight evil” argument to stay out of WWII. The idea is not so bad in its theory, but in retrospect we sometimes find that we had unfairly given the title “evil.” You lose all moral high-ground when you say, “to hell with it, just let ‘em kill eachother and we’ll do clean-up.” Of course, from a business perspective your idea is quite sound, but we’re not in the saving-lives business for the money.
Posted by: Zeek at April 11, 2005 09:54 PMWhen I said evil against evil, I meant that neither side has the high road. Both sides have committed atrocities against people in the Sudan. So do we prop up evil side #1 or do we prop up evil side #2. There is no good or right side in that battle. That is why we should stay physically out of it. Diplomacy, sanctions, etc. should be our only response to that situation.
Posted by: tom at April 12, 2005 01:21 AMtom:
Err… you said “both sides”. I was not aware the Rebels were indiscriminately killing every Arab they see. The Rebels may commit murder but it is not genocide anymore than Abu Graib is genocide. The problem in Darfur is that not only are people getting killed by accident, there is actually a POLICY of killing them ALL. The Government has sent its people to wipe out all the Black Farmers.
Posted by: Aldous at April 12, 2005 02:42 AMLOL! This is just crazy! All the Bush-fans who backed the president when he decided that saving the Iraqi people from mass killings was the “real” reason for invading and occupying Iraq, are now going back to their conservative foreign policy views.
Sudanese people are being mass executed just like Iraqis were under Saddam. Sudan even has clear terrorist connections, and is a known state-sponsor of terrorism - something Iraq never was.
If you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do, then you have to believe we should invade and occupy Sudan, too.
The fact that NONE of you are advocating it restores my faith in Republican foreign policy - and tells me you guy think Bush was an idiot to invade Iraq.
Let me put it this way, if Clinton had occupied Iraq based on the crappy evidence Bush had - and come on, we all knew it was crappy evidence at the time - you guys would have blown a gasket worse than you did over Bosnia and Kosovo.
Of course we shouldn’t take sides in tribal warfare - outside the context of a UN operation and as part of a diplomatic solution. That would be stupid.
Of course we shouldn’t take sides in tribal warfare - outside the context of a UN operation and as part of a diplomatic solution. That would be stupid.
Crap. My phrasing is off. How about,
Of course we shouldn’t take sides in tribal warfare - except in the context of a UN operation and as part of a diplomatic solution. Unilateral involvement would be stupid.
American Pundit -
Two things. First, I never supported the war in Iraq. It shouldn’t have been done without UN approval and Russian participation on some level.
Second, you said:
Of course we shouldn’t take sides in tribal warfare - except in the context of a UN operation and as part of a diplomatic solution. Unilateral involvement would be stupid.
So what should we do here in Darfur? We can probably get a Security Council resolution if we want one by shaming the Russians and Chinese into abstaining or voting for it, as they did to us on the ICC resolution. But that wouldn’t be real approval on their part. It would be like the Korean War: a UN action in name, but a U.S. action in reality. I’ve said what I think we should do - what’s your solution?
Chops, I was agreeing with you. My point is that, all of a sudden, the right seems to have come back to its senses on foreign policy.
By the standard set for unilateral action by Bush in Iraq and loudly backed by right wing do-gooders here, you guys should be chomping at the bit to invade and occupy Sudan.
But none of you are. Welcome back from the fringe.
The Sudan is different from Iraq for too many reasons to enumerate.
First let me state that freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny was a wonderful byproduct of the Iraq action, but could not be the sole motivating factor. As many people have pointed out, there is a long list of evil dictatorships that would also be candidates for such an intervention.
Oil was a factor in Iraq, although not for the reason commonly asserted by anti-war protestors. Oil=money=power. It makes someone like Saddam powerful and dangerous. An evil dictator like Saddam without the revenues from one of the world’s largest oil reserves is Robert Mugabe, very nasty but not a major threat to regional peace. The other sense oil was a factor is that the world still runs on oil.
Saddam not only sat on his own large reserve of the black stuff, but he was within scud range of a lot more. We can’t afford to take changes with a guy who had recently attacked four of his neighbors, tried to assassinate a former U.S. president, harbored terrorists, had used WMD and declared his intention to wage permanent war against our country.
Oil was also a factor in Iraq in that it allowed Saddam to provide inducements to the French, Russians and others to block actions that would have harmed him. In this case Sudan is similar.
Returning to the democracy angle, Iraq is one of the most advanced states in the Arab world. It was reasonably well run by the British supported king and – to give him his due – even Saddam Hussein built more infrastructure than the average local potentate of the time. He was doing some decent things before he went into his really loony stage in the 1980s. If you want to try democracy in the Arab world, this is not a bad candidate. Also given its geographical and historical position, there is a good chance it would spread from there to other places. Sudan is backward and poorly run even by the rather lax standards of the region. No government has ever actually controlled the whole country. It would certainly be beyond us.
Then there is the practical. The U.S. military has experience fighting in Iraq. That is why the actual war stage was so short and so phenomenally successful. I don’t think a western army has fought a major engagement in that Sudan since Lord Kitchener. There would be a deadly learning curve. Beyond that, we would be immediately into exactly the type of thing we do less well – pacification.
Finally, everyone learns from experience. If we were going into the Iraq war with the experience we have today, we would do things very differently. We have learned, for example, that U.S. forces acting in coalitions of the willing create some political and practical problems. That is the lesson all the critics of the administration have been harping on for two years. Now that the administration is trying to apply what it learned to the new situation, you advocate exactly the opposite.
If the U.S. had not pushed to keep Darfur on the world’s agenda, the genocide would have proceeded without hindrance. We have already acted much more forcefully and effectively than we did in Rwanda. But America can’t do it all. It is time for those other countries to step up to their responsibilities instead of waiting for us to act and then telling us what we did wrong.
Jack, Sudan has oil. They also harbor and support terrorists. The only remaining valid reason you present for not invading immediately and unilaterally is that we’ve never invaded Sudan before. That’s wacky, and I’m not sure you really want to argue that position.
It is time for those other countries to step up to their responsibilities instead of waiting for us to act and then telling us what we did wrong.
When (in the last fifty years, anyhow) has that ever happened? Europe couldn’t even handle Bosnia without our leadership. And frankly, I prefer it that way. It gives me the heebee jeebees to think of France, Russia, China, India or any other nation making significant foreign policy moves without the US being a big part of it.
We absolutely should be engaged in Sudan - as part of a UN operation pursuing a clear diplomatic outcome backed by force if necessary.
And that’s only going to happen with US leadership.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2005 10:22 AMAP
“We absolutely should be engaged in Sudan - as part of a UN operation pursuing a clear diplomatic outcome backed by force if necessary.”
Exactly my position and close to the official U.S. goal.
U.S. leadership is crucial. The will of the free world starts and ends in the Oval Office and it will be as it has been for the foreseeable future.
We have already made Darfur much more important on the world stage. Important players such as the Arab League and the Chinese would rather nothing effective be done. Many of the Europeans would like to decry the carnage, but take no action that smacks of effort.
We really don?t have the assets ? political, economic and military ? to do this unilaterally, especially because we will run into the active resistance of many others. The course we are following is reasonable, given the constraints.
Re Sudan compared to Iraq. Sudan?s oil doesn?t compare to Iraq?s and ? as importantly ? Sudan doesn?t live in the same kind of neighborhood full of less than stable counties floating on a sea of oil.
Beyond that it is an order of importance. Iraq is an important country in the whole region. This results from its location, history, and type of population.
That also goes to the harboring terrorists point. After 9/11, the Sudanese were properly castigated and withdrew much of their support. It is such a disorganized place that terrorists continue to find refuge, but that is a different question.
But the centrality issue is important. There are a lot of weirdoes setting up shop in rural Idaho or Montana. We don’t like them, but they don’t do a lot of harm out there talking to the trees and squirrels. If they set up similar cells in New York or Los Angeles, we would have to take action. Iraq is more like the LA of the Arab world. Sudan probably doesn?t even rise to the level of Coeur d Alene.
AP,
Expanding on what Jack said, Iraq’s pre-war (and even now) oil production was more than 10 times that of Sudan’s current oil production.
I suppose that Bush’s realization that going to war is not profitable made him think twice about invading Darfur.
Posted by: Zeek at April 12, 2005 05:43 PMJack, you say “U.S. leadership is crucial,” and I agree. But I don’t see any. So far, all Bush has done is offer plane rides to anyone who wants to send some troops.
There is no organized effort on the part of the Bush administration to find a lasting settlement in Darfur. There is no rallying of the UN to quickly find a diplomatic solution. The Bush administration is exhibiting the same “decry the carnage, but take no action” strategy for which you’re slamming Europe.
US leadership on this issue is non-existent.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2005 11:00 PMI do want to give kudos to Powell for using the word, “genocide”. It was important to raise awareness of what was going on. Unfortunately, merely invoking the magic word did nothing, and neither did the Bush administration.
AP
Yesterday we concluded a donors’ conference in Oslo. Aid is making its way to Darfur. We have been doing more than our part. You should direct your criticism at the obstructionist Arabs and Chinese or the pusillanimous Europeans or at all the peace groups that protest against U.S intervention in other cases with such sound and fury. You know that all the lefties and all the Arabists and most of the developing world publics and virtually all of the chattering classes in the U.S. and Europe would be on us like flies on horse manure the minute we did anything military effective.
The Lilliputians have managed to tie down Gulliver in this particular case. I think we are just sick of taking up the world’s burdens only to find far from appreciating what we do, the world kicks us in the rear.
We are doing our part. We are the leading (and sometimes a very lonely) voice working to solve this problem. We are working multilaterally. We are cooperating with the world community and being a good citizen. In short, we are doing everything exactly the way the world public and opinion leaders say we should.
I might be useful to start a movement among the world’s weenies, leftists, anti-Americans and anti-globalist. They can recognize that their earlier attitudes were incorrect and start protesting in favor of the U.S. Otherwise, maybe the French or Greenpeace can solve the world’s hard problems.
Oh, please. If President Bush wanted to, he could mobilize the world to settle the Darfur problem. It’s not even on his radar.
This has nothing to do with your fictional “chattering classes” and everything to do with priorities. Genocide in Darfur is not a priority for this administration.
Hooray for everyone who is donating food and blankets. I applaud the few at the UN who are working for a solution with the Sudanese government, the militias, and the refugees. And good for everyone who participated in your donor’s conference.
But don’t blame the administration’s non-involvement in a solution on Greenpeace, and don’t try to tell me Bush is a hero for merely saying the magic word, “genocide”, then doing nothing to back it up. Nobody’s buying that hogwash.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 13, 2005 09:51 AMBut don’t blame the administration’s non-involvement…
Hmm… Make that “lack of leadership”. Everything else stands.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 13, 2005 09:54 AMWe have done much more, by an order of magnitude, than anyone else. Most (not only some) of the food the people of Darfur are eating and a lot of those blankets are from the U.S. and/or paid for by the American taxpayers. It is not the only problem we have to work on and it is time for the so-called world community to step up and do its duty too. It is a good test case for this new system advocated by most of the world, where the U.S. works in concert with others.
Posted by: Jack at April 13, 2005 10:16 AMGood luck. Jack. But I find it interesting you’re making a principled stand on an issue where thousands of lives are being lost.
Despite the fact that a Republican is now in the White House, America is still the indespensible nation. Nothing of any consequence can (or should, in my opinion) get done without US leadership.
And that’s a common feeling throughout the world. Whenever anything bad happens, the first thing people ask is, “Where is America?”
Jack,
“Most (not only some) of the food the people of Darfur are eating and a lot of those blankets are from the U.S. and/or paid for by the American taxpayers.”
Great! Now when people are being shot at, they can cover themselves with a blanket and ease their passing with a Kit Kat.
Posted by: Zeek at April 14, 2005 10:13 PMZeek et al
It seems that you critics of the Bush Administration advocate military intervention and are willing to risk American lives ONLY where we don’t have practical interests.
Darfur is being handled exactly the way you advocated in Iraq AND in this case it has a better chance of working, since we are dealing more with anarchy than with organized evil.
Your argument seems to be that the U.S. intervened in Iraq so it has to intervene in Sudan. It is a variation of the same non-sequitur before the Iraq war that because the U.S. was willing to intervene in Iraq, it should do the same in Iran or North Korea.
We should choose our battles to be in places where our interests are most at stake and where we have a reasonable prospect of success.
Humanitarian relief is a U.S. interest. But it is not the only one and it must be factored into other needs and capabilities. Sometimes it works well.
Humanitarian intervention was not the chief cause of intervention in Iraq, but it is turning out to be one of the lasting benefits. Humanitarian intervention was the primary cause of our intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. Kosovo is still a work in progress, but looks like it was successful. Somalia didn’t achieve its goals and cost the U.S.. Bin Laden evidently thought he understood the U.S. after Somalia. He was wrong, but the encouragement contributed to 9/11.
Unilateral U.S. intervention in Sudan would be more like Somalia than Kosovo and would probably be less successful than Iraq. It is just a non-starter.
jack,
“It seems that you critics of the Bush Administration advocate military intervention and are willing to risk American lives ONLY where we don’t have practical interests.”
Hey, don’t lump me in with that crowd.
“Your argument seems to be that the U.S. intervened in Iraq so it has to intervene in Sudan.”
No, my argument is that we shouldn’t intervene in Sudan because there’s not enough oil. I even said that a few posts up.
“We should choose our battles to be in places where our interests are most at stake and where we have a reasonable prospect of success.”
I agree.
“Humanitarian relief is a U.S. interest.”
I disagree.
Posted by: Zeek at April 16, 2005 12:57 PMZeek
Sorry to put you in with the wrong group.
Humanitarian relief is a U.S. interest in order to prevent bad situations from getting out of hand. I can think of few places where we should make a major intervention for only humanitarian reasons, but it is part of the mix.
Jack,
“Humanitarian relief is a U.S. interest in order to prevent bad situations from getting out of hand.”
Even if they do “get out of hand” it won’t really affect us save for our consciences. Speaking from a conservative point of view, it’s “their choice” to fight each other so let them be.
Posted by: Zeek at April 16, 2005 02:58 PMZeek
If you read what I have written in other places, you will see that I am not a “softie”. I admire Dick Cheney’s point of view and I literally grew up reading Thucydides and Machiavelli. But all three of these guys (and I agree) recognized all effective policies have an aspect of morality. Our values inform where we set the boundary conditions and what we choose as important.
No country in a leadership position can ignore moral considerations and I can tell you with metaphysical certainty that humanitarian concerns play a central role in all U.S. policy considerations. They don’t always play out the way everyone wants and they are not always the determining factor, but they always have a place at the table.
It kind of reminds me of something I once heard. “It takes and intelligent man to be cynical and a wise one not to be.” People often start off idealistic and then they get cynical. I think you have to pass through cynicism and realism to reach “morality” at a higher level. You recognize limitations and constraints, but you don’t lose sight of the goals.
No country in a leadership position can ignore moral considerations…
Then why aren’t we leading on this issue?
Posted by: American Pundit at April 17, 2005 11:52 AMAP
We are leading on this issue. We just aren’t doing what you want. We are not ignoring the moral consequences, but we are putting them into the context of contraints and possibilities.
Posted by: Jack at April 17, 2005 02:20 PMThen explain to me how we are leading on this issue, Jack. As far as I know, President Bush said, “genocide”, nothing happened, and he shrugged his shoulders and said it’s the world’s problem and we’d be happy to help out with logistics if someone wanted to take the lead.
You’re basically saying the US is in a box on this issue. That’s complete BS, and it directly contradicts your assertion that we’re leading the world on resolving the Darfur crisis.
As horrible as genocide in Sudan is, it’s just not a priority for the administration.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 18, 2005 09:48 AMJack,
I believe that a majority of “humanitarian acts” were done because they were the politically popular thing to do, with little regard as to the results.
“I can tell you with metaphysical certainty that humanitarian concerns play a central role in all U.S. policy considerations. They don’t always play out the way everyone wants and they are not always the determining factor, but they always have a place at the table.”
Actually, the overthrow of the democratic Guatemalan Government in 1954 via Operation PBSUCCESS is a perfect contradiction to this. The US overthrew a legitimately elected president and replaced him with a man who had no political experience prior to becoming president. The following period of unrest in the nation in which over 100,000 Guatemalans were killed was exactly when the US decided it didn’t want to be involved anymore.
I can think of many more examples where the US actually took actions detrimental towards humanitarian efforts, and I bet you could only think of 1 thing we ever did for the sake of humanitarian relief.
Posted by: Zeek at April 18, 2005 07:38 PMZeek
It is just too much to explain. I always like these round numbers people come up with. 100,000 is a nice round number and all of it must be due to the one cause. If you want really big numbers, you have to look to the communists and fascists. The high estimate for deaths related to the cultural revolution is 50 million.
Humanitarian relief and morality are not the same things and any intelligent decisions maker tries to make the most of all options. I am not really concerned about doing things for strictly humanitarian reasons.
The most extraordinary act of national generosity in the history of the world was the Marshall Plan. It literally formed the basis of the prosperity the world enjoys today. But it was not carried out only or even primarily for humanitarian reasons.
The earlier defeat of Nazi Germany is another example of a morally just cause, not pursued for strictly or even primarily moral reasons.
U.S. rules of engagement in today’s wars are examples of humanitarian principles. If you believe, as I do, that war is sometimes necessary, that is a big step forward.
Morality is one aspect. Only people without imagination do anything difficult for only one reason, although the Bush Administration’s fight against global trafficking in persons is a good example of a moral crusade. I can’t identify any significant practical American interest besides morality.
AP
We are leading with donors’ conferences and identifying the problem. U.S. and international pressure has limited the attacks. It is likely that without the U.S. the problem would have been solved already – by the refugees being wiped out. We have done everything possible short of unilateral military intervention. I would not be willing to go much further. This is not the first crisis in the region and it won’t be the last. It is currently not a high priority. I won’t apologize for setting priorities based on a mix of motives and interests. Sometimes we have to make hard choices and people will always disagree.
We are leading with donors’ conferences and identifying the problem… I won’t apologize for setting priorities based on a mix of motives and interests. Sometimes we have to make hard choices and people will always disagree.
Thank you, Jack. The Bush administration is not taking the lead in solving the problem because it’s not a priority. That’s all I was saying.
