Nicholas D Kristof: How Much Genocide Is Too Much?

I recently noted David Cameron's weak response to the worsening situation in Darfur, Sudan.  His reliance on UN-led action amounts to poseur multilateralism.  I can't believe that it wins the approval of DC's neocon supporters - Michael Gove, Ed Vaizey, George Osborne and the like.  I certainly hope not.

Nicholas Kristof's latest despatch for the New York Times (from Nyala, Sudan - subscription required) shows that the situation is continuing to deteriorate.  He writes:

"The international community has delegated security to the African Union, but its 7,000 troops can't even defend themselves, let alone protect civilians. One group of 18 peacekeepers was kidnapped last month, and then 20 soldiers sent to rescue them were kidnapped as well; four other soldiers and two contractors were killed in a separate incident.  What will happen if the situation continues to deteriorate sharply and aid groups pull out? The U.N. has estimated that the death toll could then rise to 100,000 a month."

His article notes that many natives of the region are only allowed to live/subsist in exchange for protection money or as slave labour.  'When will the world act?', he asks: 

"Will President Bush and other leaders discover some backbone if the killing spreads to Chad and the death toll reaches 500,000? One million? God forbid, two million?  How much genocide is too much?"

He recommends this blog - Sleepless in Sudan - from "a dazed and confused aid worker in Sudan".

Comments

[James Hellyer]

One thing that it apparent, is that waiting for the United Nations to declare the situation in Darfur an act of genocide, and actually organise any form of intervention is simply to turn a blind eye while the body count rises.

It's time that countries which have the capacity to intervene make use of their capaicty, whether the UN says this is genocide or not. Only foreign troops can create safe areas where the civilian population will be protected.

Fine words are not enough.

[malcolm]

The only country that has anything like the capacity to intervene on its own is the USA and with Bush so politically damaged I don't think Congress would sanction any further military expenditure in the unlikely event that Bush or the neo-cons asked for it.

[James Hellyer]

Which is why a co-alition of countries needs to act outside the UN - just as they did in reaction the Asian Ocean Disaster.

All it takes is for someone to show a lead.

[Samuel Coates]

He also wrote an article for the IHT called Ministry of Rape ("Sudan's Department of Gang Rape" in the American version) from Nyala.
It was very challenging, detailing the brutality of the systematic rape of women in african tribes by arabic men in government uniforms.

[Rick]

Both China and France have oil interests in Sudan - that is 40% Security Council votes.

Russia has no real urge to allow anyone to get involved.

Britain and the US are tied up in Iraq. Just why Britain should get too involved in Sudan when it has done precious little in Zimbabwe is a moot point.

Once the British had an Imperial Reach and could use its imperial armies to do its bidding, where its national interest was at stake. It is no longer in a position to do such things, it is a Post-Imperial Power leveraging a very small army on the back of US bulk, but even the Us has a very small army nowadays.

It is a simple fact that "The West" is an increasingly marginal force in the world, and it might be worthwhile learning this lesson early. The "Western Values" which some think are universal are despised in much of the world; and increasingly Asian Values which place a lower value on human life will force their way to the forefront.

The rise of Stalin's USSR and the response of the German Nazis both embodied inhumane value systems; to defeat the one required 6 years of war, to defeat the other required 40 years of military build-up and threats of war.

Now there seems to be an attitude that if a meeting is called everyone will agree to be nice to one another; it is a delusional state that leads to morass like Kosovo, Bosnia, Congo etc. We just have to face our limitations - sometimes we can intervene, often not, and one day our bluff will be called and we shall have to fight a real war - let's hope it is worth it for our national interest.

[Rick]

Both China and France have oil interests in Sudan - that is 40% Security Council votes.

Russia has no real urge to allow anyone to get involved.

Britain and the US are tied up in Iraq. Just why Britain should get too involved in Sudan when it has done precious little in Zimbabwe is a moot point.

Once the British had an Imperial Reach and could use its imperial armies to do its bidding, where its national interest was at stake. It is no longer in a position to do such things, it is a Post-Imperial Power leveraging a very small army on the back of US bulk, but even the Us has a very small army nowadays.

It is a simple fact that "The West" is an increasingly marginal force in the world, and it might be worthwhile learning this lesson early. The "Western Values" which some think are universal are despised in much of the world; and increasingly Asian Values which place a lower value on human life will force their way to the forefront.

The rise of Stalin's USSR and the response of the German Nazis both embodied inhumane value systems; to defeat the one required 6 years of war, to defeat the other required 40 years of military build-up and threats of war.

Now there seems to be an attitude that if a meeting is called everyone will agree to be nice to one another; it is a delusional state that leads to morass like Kosovo, Bosnia, Congo etc. We just have to face our limitations - sometimes we can intervene, often not, and one day our bluff will be called and we shall have to fight a real war - let's hope it is worth it for our national interest.

[malcolm]

I find much to my consternation agreeing with Ricks post entirely.We could however give arms to the Sudanese rebels to help them defend themselves on a more equal playing field.Have we got the guts to face the angry French and Chinese as a result

[James Hellyer]

"Britain and the US are tied up in Iraq. Just why Britain should get too involved in Sudan when it has done precious little in Zimbabwe is a moot point."

Because hundreds of thousands aren't being slaughtered in Zimbabwe? There is that rather crucial difference.

Your points about the Security Council just makes the case for unilateral action of the UN's mandate. NATO countries could support the AU troops in Darfur. They could provide and police no fly zones.

Your arguments about shortage of men and material also do not hold. Troops, ship and aircraft, including a carrier battle group, were provided by the US and other in the face of recent natural humanitarian disasters. There is no reason why they cannot do the same here - except a lack of political and moral will.

[James Hellyer]

"We could however give arms to the Sudanese rebels"

The aim would be to enforce a ceasefire, not to intensify the fighting!

[wasp]

It seems to me that no American president would commit more troops to active service abroad under current circumstances.

And without American leadership the UN is of little use.

[James Hellyer]

"And without American leadership the UN is of little use."

The point is that the UN is no use. It won't take the required action because too many permanent members of the security council have oil interests or weapons deals secured with the government in Khartoum.

Unilateralism is required. The US could give a lead, and could police no fly zones - as could the UK.

[malcolm]

Wouldn't be much use 'though.The militia who are carrying out these atrocities as I understand it are not supplied from the air.So you would need troops to patrol a very large area indeed.Who would supply them?Britain is in no position to do so,then who?The laughable European Rapid Reaction force? No, all roads lead back to the USA I'm afraid.

[James Hellyer]

"The militia who are carrying out these atrocities as I understand it are not supplied from the air."

They aren;t being supplied by air, however both government and militias are using ariel bombardment against civilian populations.

"So you would need troops to patrol a very large area indeed."

No, you as a starter would simply need to supplement AU troops and supplies to create safe areas for the civilain population.

"No, all roads lead back to the USA I'm afraid."

No, this comes back to the weak assertions that the US and the US alone can do something. As the reactions to the Indian Ocean Disaster showed, coalitions of countries can act together and deploy large forces outside of the UN's auspices. It's simply a false argument to assert that unless the US acts as the world's police man, that nothing can be done. That is an apologia for turning a blind eye.

[Rick]

Just one question - who is going to legitimise all thia activity ? The minute any Western country became involved the streets would be filled with protest marchers - currently there are none - noone protests about Darfur or Zimbabwe - even though the media tries to stir some interest...........

[James Hellyer]

"Just one question - who is going to legitimise all thia activity ?"

Nobody. That's the point of acting outside of the UN.

"The minute any Western country became involved the streets would be filled with protest marchers"

Yes, I can just see those marchers begging us to let the slaughter resume...

[Rick]

Yes, I can just see those marchers begging us to let the slaughter resume.

Those marchers would not care..........it would be the Americans who would be blamed for "the slaughter" and evident to the marchers that things could only improve if the Americans withdrew.............the script is old

[James Hellyer]

"Those marchers would not care"

Who are these marchers, Rick? What group would protest?

[Rick]

Well James I can see you are not au fait with life in Europe over the past 30 years. Perhaps if you get in touch with Lindsey German she can fill you in on the detail.

If you get more proficient with the Net you may even find the requisite sites yourself.

[James Hellyer]

Well Rick, I see you fall back on patronisng people when your blowhard posturing is shown up for the nonsense it is.

I don't recall any such mass protests concerning the police action in the former Yugoslavia or Afghanistan. Why would an obvious humanitarian mission be so different?

[James Hellyer]

The point is that humanitarian action is not something that attracts protests like the Iraq War did. Naming members of Respect, as if that proves a point, doesn't actually change that.

[Rick]

don't recall any such mass protests concerning the police action in the former Yugoslavia

There was no "police action" in Yugoslavia - there was an illegal war in breach of the 1975 Helsinki Treaty. NATO did to Belgrade what the Luftwaffe did in 1941.

Even the latest Spectator is moved to comment on the bombing of a TV Station in Belgrade in 1999 in violation of Geneva Conventions.

If you try to excuse the bombing of civilian infrastructure and broadcasting studios in Serbia, I doubt we can find common ground. It was NATO and not the Warsaw Pact which bombed a European capital and violated the Helsinki Treaty and breached the UN Charter.

[Rick]

Stop being mealy-mouthed - Lindsey German is Socialist Workers Party and "respect" is their latest wrapper just like "Anti-Nazi League" and the rest of their Red Fascism.

[Editor]

Kristof's recommendations of what to do about Darfur:

"In 1915, Woodrow Wilson turned a blind eye to the Armenian genocide. In the 1940's, Franklin Roosevelt refused to bomb the rail lines leading to Auschwitz. In 1994, Bill Clinton turned away from the slaughter in Rwanda. And in 2005, President Bush is acquiescing in the first genocide of the 21st century, in Darfur.

Mr. Bush is paralyzed for the same reasons as his predecessors. There is no great public outcry, there are no neat solutions, we already have our hands full, and it all seems rather distant and hopeless.

But Darfur is not hopeless. Here's what we should do.

First, we must pony up for the African Union security force. The single most disgraceful action the U.S. has taken was Congress's decision, with the complicity of the Bush administration, to cut out all $50 million in the current budget to help pay for the African peacekeepers in Darfur. Shame on Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona -- and the White House -- for facilitating genocide.

Mr. Bush needs to find $50 million fast and get it to the peacekeepers.

Second, the U.S. needs to push for an expanded security force in Darfur. The African Union force is a good start, but it lacks sufficient troops and weaponry. The most practical solution is to ''blue hat'' the force, making it a U.N. peacekeeping force built around the African Union core. It needs more resources and a more robust mandate, plus contributions from NATO or at least from major countries like Canada, Germany and Japan.

Third, we should impose a no-fly zone. The U.S. should warn Sudan that if it bombs civilians, then afterward we will destroy the airplanes involved.

Fourth, the House should pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This legislation, which would apply targeted sanctions and pressure Sudan to stop the killing, passed the Senate unanimously but now faces an uphill struggle in the House.

Fifth, Mr. Bush should use the bully pulpit. He should talk about Darfur in his speeches and invite survivors to the Oval Office. He should wear a green ''Save Darfur'' bracelet -- or how about getting a Darfur lawn sign for the White House? (Both are available, along with ideas for action, from www.savedarfur.org.) He can call Hosni Mubarak and other Arab and African leaders and ask them to visit Darfur. He can call on China to stop underwriting this genocide.

Sixth, President Bush and Kofi Annan should jointly appoint a special envoy to negotiate with tribal sheiks. Colin Powell or James Baker III would be ideal in working with the sheiks and other parties to hammer out a peace deal. The envoy would choose a Sudanese chief of staff like Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a leading Sudanese human rights activist who has been pushing just such a plan with the help of Human Rights First.

So far, peace negotiations have failed because they center on two groups that are partly composed of recalcitrant thugs: the government and the increasingly splintered rebels. But Darfur has a traditional system of conflict resolution based on tribal sheiks, and it's crucial to bring those sheiks into the process.

Ordinary readers can push for all these moves. Before he died, Senator Paul Simon said that if only 100 people in each Congressional district had demanded a stop to the Rwandan genocide, that effort would have generated a determination to stop it. But Americans didn't write such letters to their members of Congress then, and they're not writing them now.

Finding the right policy tools to confront genocide is an excruciating challenge, but it's not the biggest problem. The hardest thing to find is the political will.

For all my criticisms of Mr. Bush, he has sent tons of humanitarian aid, and his deputy secretary of state, Robert Zoellick, has traveled to Darfur four times this year. But far more needs to be done.

As Simon Deng, a Sudanese activist living in the U.S., puts it: ''Tell me why we have Milosevic and Saddam Hussein on trial for their crimes, but we do nothing in Sudan. Why not just let all the war criminals go. When it comes to black people being slaughtered, do we look the other way?''

Put aside for a moment the question of whether Mr. Bush misled the nation on W.M.D. in Iraq. It's just as important to ask whether he was truthful when he declared in his second inaugural address, ''All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.''

Mr. Bush, so far that has been a ringing falsehood -- but, please, make it true."

[Rick]

In 1915, Woodrow Wilson turned a blind eye to the Armenian genocide. In the 1940's, Franklin Roosevelt refused to bomb the rail lines leading to Auschwitz.

The Armenian Genocide was admistered by German Generals assisting its ally. It would have been nice for Wilson to enter the War in 1914 rather than 1917 but Europe was not a place Americans wanted to get involved in.

Name which USAAF aircraft could have reached Oswiecim in Poland ? In 1944 during the Warsaw Rising 160 Squadron used to fly supplies to Warsaw on a 16 hour round trip taking enormous losses and flying from Bari - but they had such low payload it was a struggle.

The USSR refused to allow Allied Aircraft to operate from territory under the control of the Red Army. Then again you could expect little else since 1939-40 the NKVD ran a joint centre with the RHSA and SS near Zakopane working out how to destroy Polish intelligentsia.

At Katyn the NKVD had two officers shoot 6000 men in the back of the neck in a wooden hut draped with leather sheeting to capture the blood splattering; the SS perfected the use of CO trucks at Chelmno and developed industrial processes.

[James Hellyer]

"NATO did to Belgrade what the Luftwaffe did in 1941."

Godwin's Law could have been invented to describe Rick's posts!

Anway, Kristof's recommendations are bang on the money.