Q7: Genocide in Darfur

"Up to 400,000 people have died in the Darfur region of Sudan over the last eighteen months. What specifically should Britain and the international community have done for the people of Darfur that has not been done?"

David Cameron: “We should have pressed for the situation to have been described as genocide by the UN, a decision which would have prompted a series of interventions.“

David Davis: ”Those 400,000 people have died while the rest of the world has been busy debating whether it was genocide or not. So the first thing we, the international community, can do is make it quite clear that what we’ve seen in Sudan is state-sponsored genocide. That enables us to consider war trials for those responsible.  The UN has been feeble, while the African Union troops deployed to keep the peace are proving to be ineffective, despite their efforts, because there are too few of them. Their number should be increased. The international community should ask NATO to enforce a no-fly zone in the region to stop the Government and militias using aerial bombardment against their victims, and we should seriously consider imposing sanctions on oil and arms against the Sudanese Government.  Britain has particular responsibilities in Africa because of our influence through the Commonwealth. It is in Britain’s own interests – as well as those of the people of Darfur and other poverty-stricken regions – to promote democracy, development and the rule of law around the world.”

Editor's Comment: "This response from David Cameron is the poorest of any in this questionnaire.  On a number of occasions I've welcomed his commitment to Darfur (see here and more recently here, for example).  At his campaign launch he declared: "And when the Conservative Party talks about foreign affairs it can't just be Gibraltar and Zimbabwe.  We have got to show as much passion about Darfur and the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day in sub-Saharan African who are getting poorer while we are getting richer."   DC's response to this question suggests that the people of Darfur may get passion but they won't get any action.  'Pressing' the UN is a very inadequate response to what is happening in Darfur.  The UN is an institution-of-convenience which poseur multilateralists often hide behind as an excuse for inaction.  Two of the UN's permanent security council members will never vote for the situation to be identified as genocide.  One, China, has extensive oil interests in Sudan.  Another, Russia, is selling military hardware to Khartoum.  It's better not to promise action than to promise action and do nothing.   DD is right to describe the UN response as "feeble".  I hope he doesn't mean the UN when he talks of the "international community".  We need a coalition of willing democracies to act for the people of Darfur in the ways DD describes.  After Rwanda the world said "never again".  Those words didn't mean a thing."   

Comments

[Gareth]

It wasn't a comment on the purpose of politics, it's a comment on the reality of electoral politics. How many doorsteps have you knocked on where Darfur was raised as an issue?

[Editor]

Early in the summer I watched a march down Whitehall involving thousands of people.

[Simon C]

Gareth,

Leaving aside the moral imperatives of Darfur, isn't this an issue which might help us become a nice party again in the eyes of metropolitan liberals?

Off to a meeting now, but I have enjoyed our debates & will pick them up again later.

"Oh Mark! Surely you can see the difference between relying on the UN and not relying on the UN!"

Not in these answers.

Davis says "the international community" should call Darfur genocide, and "the international community" should ask NATO to enforce a no-fly zone. Nowhere in his answer does he say that a coalition of the willing should act without the approval of the UN. If, by "the international community" he means something other than the UN, he should say so. And yet, it's the Cameron-haters who like throwing around accusations of vagueness.

Cameron, at least, specifically states that *Britain* should have pressed for the UN to describe Darfur as genocide. Davis says Britain has "particular" responsibilities, but doesn't say what they are, and says we should promote "democracy, development and the rule of law around the world", but doesn't say how.

Editor, you're right that Cameron doesn't go anywhere near far enough (for my liking at least) on this question. But if you think Davis does, I think you've been duped. Surely as a "floating voter" you should look behind Davis' rhetoric as much as Cameron's.

At best, I'd have scored this question as a 0-0 draw.

And at least I can remember Cameron talking about Darfur before this question.

[Martin Curtis]

Just because DD's answer is longer doesn't make it better, in reality they both say the same thing - but DC gives a firm answer on what should have happened.

[Bob]

Sorry, didn't mean to make the last post anonymous.

[James Hellyer]

"Oh Mark! Surely you can see the difference between relying on the UN and not relying on the UN!"

Not in these answers.

There is a difference between peacekeeping action run with UN approval and peackeeping action run by the UN.

[Kate Castle]

There really isn't much difference in the answers. A draw looks a fairer result, or maybe a slight win for Davis for detailing the no-fly zone & sanctions. The general approach seems the same from both though.

[Jack Stone]

Its clear from his answers that should we ever have the misfortune to have DD as Prime Minister he would be another Blair getting this country involved in all sorts of disputes in the world and subsequently risking our troops lives.
Action should be taken through the UN not by any other means.

[Bob]

"There is a difference between peacekeeping action run with UN approval and peackeeping action run by the UN."

Where does Cameron say that the UN should run peacekeeping missions?

[Gareth]

Simon,

It depends on whether caring about Darfur means British soliders have got to saddle up and go and fight another foreign war. I, for one, have had enough of these wars to make the world safe for democracy.

If it means passing UN resolutions then, fair enough.

I still maintain there are no votes in it though.

[Editor]

"Action should be taken through the UN not by any other means." = "No action" (or not until it's too late anyway).

[Gareth]

Oh dear. Me thinks Ed is with Donald Rumsfeld on UN resolutions.

Are we going to invade China too? They are also not very nice people I hear.

[Peter]

Well said Tim, I think Jack has forgotten about why the second world war happened?

[johnC]

A very disappointing response from Cameron. The Major government's disgraceful policy towards Bosnia was for me the greatest single indictment of that late unlamented administration. I had hoped that the Conservative party had learnt the lesson of those years: that out of sheer humanity we have a responsibility to intervene when faced with genocide and we cannot hide behind empty words and ineffective diplomacy.
Only Liam Fox seems to have really developed any clear agenda for an ethical foreign policy and I just hope he stays as shadow foreign secretary whoever wins the leadership. Some tough words on the subject of human rights in China would help as well.

[malcolm]

You're right about the Major government in Bosnia John.The worst thing we ever did was tell them we would help the Bosnians when we had no intention of doing anything meaningful and eventually only the efforts of Bill Clinton saved the day.A black time for Britain and a worse one for the EU.
If we are going to intervene in Darfur or other trouble spots we would need a massive increase in defence expenditure and I would be very reluctant for a British PM to send British soldiers to their deaths in wars that didn't affect Britain.

[Barbara Villiers]

Well that just about sums you up Gareth - Darfur is not a vote winner - so ignore it. And you wonder why I deplore venial little metrosexuals?

[Andrew]

Hrrm, what does sexuality have to do with it?

Personally, I'd be quite content to see our soldiers unseating the Bashir regime, given their culpability in over 2 million deaths in the SPLM wars, not to mention brutal repression in the north and west (and I'm not some imperialist/neocon/whatever, I opposed the Iraq mess).

The south could then vote to secede, as it should have been allowed to at independance. This has numerous knock-on benefits on the stability of neighbouring states, not least of which it would mitigate the anarchy in which the LRA, easily the most despicable terrorist group in the world (ps it's Christian), has been able to operate cross-border into Uganda.

[johnC]

While on the subject of Africa why as a party are we not supporting the independence of Somaliland ? This is a British foreign policy stance that I have never understood. They have been effectively and successfully functioning as an independent state for years. Why should they continue to be tied to the chaos in Mogadishu ?

[Ciara Johnson]

The Sudanese had their opportunity to stop these hateful acts and since they have not, the UN should be promted to take action and save the lives of those responsible for the injustices they caused. therefore, i agree with David Davis.
We as a nation are also suseptable to these terrible crimes, therefore as a nation at war with Iraq, and other Middle Eastern states for oil, we should draw our forces back and try not to make the same mistakes we had during the Vietnam War, when no one was welcomed back becuase it was a cuase we should not have supported nor been involved in.
Darfur is just like us, and if it could happen to them and their children, then it coudl happen to us as well.
Stop this from happening and Save Darfur!

[bill grant]

wait just a day or two to hear whar cameron says about darfur on his return from khartoum and darfur befoe coming to a judgement. he was quite outspoken on sudanese TV after meetinf their foreign minister

Cut me up now and feed me to the sharks!

[Cheap NBA Jerseys From China]

The words that hear Yang Yi, the cold Europe Chen is tiny to tinily sigh tone:"Are you worried if the brother-in-law had an accident?" [url=http://ncms.ustb.edu.cn/special/cheapnbajerseys.html]Cheap NBA Jerseys From China[/url] Cheap NBA Jerseys From China

[Louis Vuitton bags]

Can't waking up the meeting be getting more hungry? [url=http://cheaplouisvuittonbeltsonline.webs.com/]Louis Vuitton bags[/url] Louis Vuitton bags

[herbaleurope.net]

Thank you for sharing your info. I really appreciate your efforts and I am waiting for your next write ups thank you once again.