Time for Action on Sudan

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/opinion/18FRI1.html">Time for Action on Sudan

Many people may not be aware, but a brutal massacre has been raging in Sudan. Although it is part of a greater civil war that has been raging nearly non-stop for decades, the last several months have seen a dramatic rise in the rate of murder. Instead of recounting everything here, I will leave it to you to search for info on the background. The American media (surprise surprise) hasn't covered this too extensively, but I have found the Economist and the New York Times to provide decent reporting. Keep an eye out for Nicholas Kristof http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/opinion/16KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists>Dare We Call it Genocide? he has been writing regularly on the subject for the past couple months, and provides a vivid description of the situation.

Although a discussion on Sudan has been active for a while, I am moved to post on it because of today's NYT op-ed column. As the column clearly argues, although there has been much discussion and condemnation in diplomatic circles, there has been absolutely NO ACTION. China, Pakistan and Algeria stonewall any attempt made by the UN to act, doing more to actually protect the Sudanese government.

At the same time, the Bush administration is too busy examining whether or not the disaster in Sudan legally meets the definition of Genocide. I am abhorred by the failure of the Western democracies to do anything on behalf of the Sudanese people. After the Holocaust, we hear all to often "Never Again!" in reference to preventing another Genocide from breaking out. Yet, the remainder of the twentieth century is marked by the West's failure to take any action to back up this statement. Nothing was done in Cambodia during the 1970's, and in the mid 1990's, the UN just stood around, and monitored the massacres in Rwanda.

President Clinton often points to the NATO action he led to end the killings in Kosovo (a little delayed, but better late than never right?), but where was he when the UN needed someone to lead a force into Kosovo? In the one month the UN spent debating what to do, almost 1 million people were hacked to death.

Rwanda was supposed to change everything. This was supposed to be the real eye opener. Now we know that Genocide doesn't take months and months to develop, so expedited reaction is an even greater necessity.

Once again though, many thousands of people are dying, and those that can make a difference are sitting on their hands, claiming that they cannot act until they are positive that Sudan meets all the legal requirements of Genocide.

Does it really make a difference? People are people! Is it considered less morally reprehensible if it is deemed that the Sudanese government did not really attempt to wipe out every Black African/Christian/Animist?

Bush does deserve to be praised for negotiating a peace in the civil war, but permitting the Genocide now in exchange for maintaining the accord is pointless. The same can be said for travel restrictions and sanctions. As the Times points out, what good will that do on a government that is already banned from half the world and has no assets to freeze?

I think the biggest problem I have with the Bush administration's response is the sudden concern over legality. They were all to eager to invade Iraq, and remove Saddam, who was such an urgent threat to national security. Now, I supported the invasion of Iraq. I think there were too many broken resolutions to overlook. However, I think a much stronger case could be made for invading Sudan.

The humanitarian crisis in Sudan is much worse than the situation under Saddam. At least Iraq did have a central government that was half heartedly committed to distributing foreign aid (yes this was only after half of the aid was confiscated for Saddam himself).

At the same time Sudan can also be classified as a failed state, a state with a very weak central government. Its much more likely that the Sudanese government would support Terrorism, or allow terrorists to operate off of Sudanese soil. They did house Osama at one point, and I don't find it far fetched to believe they would do it again if the price was right.

Furthermore, as a result of the peace treaty, Bush is immensely popular in the South. It would be a perfect opportunity for him to deploy the military in a situation where he would not only receive immense praise from the international community, but also be openly embraced by the native populations!

Alas, this appears to be too much to ask. The world will once again passionately cry out "Never Again" while standing idly by and not lifting a finger.