Kristof is Perplexed

Poor Nicholas Kristof today declares, "I understand the painful ethical choices of Abdelrahim's family, of Mr. Hassan and of the international aid agencies. But what I can't fathom is our own moral choice, our decision to acquiesce in genocide".

We in America could save kids like Abdelrahim and Muhammad. This wouldn't require troops, just a bit of gumption to declare a no-fly zone, to press our Western allies and nearby Arab and African states, to impose an arms embargo and other targeted sanctions, to push a meaningful U.N. resolution even at the risk of a Chinese veto, and to insist upon the deployment of a larger African force.

Instead, President Bush's policy is to chide Sudan and send aid. That's much better than nothing and has led Sudan to kill fewer children and to kill more humanely: Sudan now mostly allows kids in Darfur like Abdelrahim to die of starvation, instead of heaving them onto bonfires. But fundamentally, U.S. policy seems to be to "manage" the genocide rather than to act decisively to stop it.

Well, Nicholas, if you can convince Karl Rove how doing more will translate into votes for Bush (and not for Kerry), perhaps Bush will have a moral awakening.

It's All The UN's Fault

Today, Babbling Brooks blames the impasse on Darfur on the United Nations - the poor United States did everything right, but those darn diplomats in the UN just won't move on the crisis. But, funny, nowhere in his column does he discuss the Security Council resolution the United States submitted to the Council demanding the declaration that events in Darfur constitute genocide, demanding military intervention, calling for the dispatch of peacekeeping forces, or authorizing any nation to intervene to stop the bloodshed. What? You mean, the U.S. didn't submit any such resolution? Go figure. As As Nat Hentoff points out:

On September 18, the U.N. General Assembly passed a watered-down U.S.-sponsored resolution saying "it shall consider" possible oil sanctions on Sudan, but not, at the present time, any sanctions against Khartoum's murderous leaders.

So what Mr. Brooks seemingly means is that the U.S. engaged in a series of diplomatic moves meant to make Bush look good, but without taking any constructive or binding steps toward ending the violence. Without exercising genuine diplomacy, to overcome international resistance to effective intervention, or to build an actual coalition which might act. Which, as it seems, is all Babbling Brooks wants of his beloved President.

Nat Hentoff, while criticizing both parties for their falure to take a stand on this issue, also points out:

John Kerry, at the National Baptist Convention in New Orleans, in a speech hardly mentioned in the media except notably by Stanley Crouch in the September 13 Daily News, "got a standing ovation by calling on President Bush to take leadership in 'the immediate deployment of an effective international force to disarm militia and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur.'"

So one might expect Babbling Brooks to expend a sentence or two endorsing Kerry's position. Or suggesting that, as Kerry indicated, the President could do more about the situation. Or expressing that it is a shame that the President chose a watered-down resolution over the type of authorization Kerry called for.

Well, no. If you know the work of Babbling Brooks you had no such expectation - something that might reflect a modicum of insight or balance. If you read Brooks and actually expect such balance, I leave you with the words of Homer Simpson.

Darfur

So Colin Powell says it's genocide, and the Bush Administration hasn't sent anybody out to backtrack or say that Powell's position isn't the official position of the Administration.... Now what?

Darfur Revisited

Today's Washington Post informs us that, despite Colin Powell's high profile visit, the situation in Darfur has not improved. Meanwhile London's Guardian reports that "Tony Blair has asked Downing Street and Foreign Office officials to draw up plans for possible military intervention in Sudan, where more than a million refugees are at risk from famine and disease."

As it is patent that both the U.S. and Britain hope to resolve the situation in Darfur through diplomatic means, and as governments frequently draw up military plans for conflicts they have no intention of actually fighting, we will have to wait and see if Blair's move is an effort to put a bit more muscle behind his diplomatic arm-wrestling, or if he will actually deploy troops if the situation does not improve.

Progress on Darfur?

With the U.S. "Ambassador at Large" for war crimes acknowledging "indicators of genocide" (albeit indicators he pretends have not been confirmed) and Colin Powell scheduled to visit the region, is the Bush Administration finally going to put some diplomatic muscle (if not military might) behind an effort to stop mass starvation?

(The Washington Post provides background information.)

When Darfur Rears Its Ugly Head....

... What does Brave Sir Bush do? In the context of Darfur, according to Nicholas Kristof, he won't say a word.

I don't want to be unfair to Bush, though. Where Kristof suggests that it would be ridiculous to invade Sudan to end the genocide in Darfur ("The U.S. is not going to invade Sudan. That's not a plausible option"), and suggest that we can use shame as our exclusive tool, via a speech by Bush at the United Nations - "Governments tend to be embarrassed about exterminating minorities." - Bush and his advisors probably see things a bit differently.

If Bush acknowledges a genocide, makes a high profile statement calling for its immediate end, and then nonetheless permits it to continue, he will risk demonstrating that the putative "Bush Doctrine" is dead in its tracks - how can you claim an interest in democratization, ending internal oppression, increasing regional stability, ending support for terrorism and eliminating its "breeding grounds", when you won't even respond to genocide in Sudan? And I think it is reasonable to believe in this context that words won't be enough. Everybody in the world who wants to know what is happening is already aware, to some degree, of the atrocities which are occurring in Sudan. That is to say, the world's political leaders and opinion shapers have already looked at the situation and have more or less decided to keep it under the radar screen.

While a Bush speech may wake up the American masses who may not yet have learned of Darfur (due primarily to the typically atrocious international news coverage offered by most U.S. media outlets), it seems unlikely to bring in pressure from the rest of the world. So if Bush successfully brings attention to the genocide, brings about a popular demand for ending the genocide, and nothing happens in response... what's the upside for him? (And with all due respect to those in Kristof's "words are enough" camp, I must have missed the historic genocides that were ended merely because a government, not to ashamed to slaughter its own people under the eyes of the world, was embarrassed by a speech given at the U.N.)

Darfur

As usual, all words, no action.