|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Guest
Contributor
Michael
M. Rosen and Daniel I.Silverberg
Michael
M. Rosen is an attorney in San Diego. Daniel I. Silverberg
is an attorney in San Francisco.
 How
to Stop the Sudanese Genocide
...and How Not To...
[Michael
M. Rosen and Daniel I.Silverberg] 2/15/05
On January
9, the Sudanese government inked a deal with southern rebels
to end the country’s 21 year-long civil war. While the
agreement gives hope to a region that has not experienced a
shred of development in ten years, it does not cover the 22-month
conflict in Sudan’s western Darfur region, where approximately
70,000 people have died and more than 1.8 million others have
been displaced from their homes. According to Human Rights
Watch, the Sudanese government continues to attack civilians
in Darfur and has failed to take any steps to “neutralize
and disarm the Janjaweed/armed militias.” Meanwhile,
rebels have launched several small-scale offensives, in blatant
violation of cease-fire accords signed with the government
last November. Given the threat of ongoing calamity in the
region, President Bush must bolster the African Union (AU),
which negotiated the most recent peace accords, in order to
arrive at a political, and, if necessary, military resolution
to the crisis.
For too long,
efforts to stem the bleeding in Darfur reflected a 1990's mindset.
During the nineties, international crisis resolution revolved
around a toolkit comprising international law, institutions,
and commerce. This toolkit first emerged after the fall of
the Berlin Wall, when theorists of international politics from
across the political spectrum waxed lyrical about the "End
of History" and the "new paradigm" of international
cooperation. As described by Robert Kagan, the hallmarks of
global politics would place "emphasis on negotiation,
diplomacy, and commercial ties, on international law over the
use of force." International law, supported by multilateral
institutions and global commerce, would emerge as the defining
regime for global affairs.
Sadly, however,
these tools have grown corroded from misuse and desperately
need reforging.
First, international
law has been reduced to a porridge of diplomatic double-speak.
During the debate over the invasion of Iraq, numerous EU members
spoke of law as a hallowed arbiter of conflict; yet the EU
has failed to acknowledge that genocide is occurring in Sudan
despite overwhelming evidence. At the UN, diplomats who recently
used broad legal strokes to describe the U.S. as a violator
of international law, now wriggle out of defining Darfur as
genocide, all while thousands face slaughter.
Second, multilateral
institutions like the UN, EU and the Arab League have turned
a blind eye. All three allude to the "humanitarian crisis" -
not the genocide - in Darfur but none has taken significant
action in response. The Security Council passed toothless resolutions
calling on Khartoum to rein in the Janjaweed and is "considering" imposing
sanctions. The EU sent humanitarian aid. And an Arab League
fact-finding mission went so far as to blame the "conflict" on
drought and under-development in Darfur.
Finally,
international commerce has, if anything, compounded the crisis.
Economics, according to the post-Cold War paradigm, were supposed
to offer both carrot - free trade and export markets - and
stick - sanctions - to ensure good international citizenship.
Instead, the economic ties of Security Council members like
France, Russia, and China to the Khartoum regime and its oil
spigots have hampered forceful action or even sanctions.
But if these
three tools have failed miserably, unilateral American force
will not save the day either. The U.S., stretched thin by the
war on terror, can ill-afford to open a new front, let alone
in another oil-producing Muslim country.
How, then,
can the tragedy be stopped?
Fortunately,
a solution is in reach. The U.S. should strengthen the efforts
of the most important regional multilateral institution – the
African Union. The U.S. should empower the AU to offer incentives
to both sides, including recognizing Darfur’s autonomy
within a unified Sudan. Without such incentives, there’s
little reason for the rebels to endorse the cease-fire -- much
to the detriment of civilians -- or for the government to rein
in the Janjaweed.
Simultaneously,
the U.S. must militarily reinforce the AU if an invasion of
Sudan is deemed necessary. Currently, the African Union lacks
both the will and the resources to invade a sovereign state.
The AU has deployed 900 troops of a possible 3,500 designated
for peacekeeping duties, and none of these soldiers is armed.
The U.S. and its allies must immediately provide assistance
to deploy the remaining peacekeepers, then offer substantial
aid, including arms shipments and special operations training,
to the AU. Both President Bush and John Kerry voiced support
for exactly this plan during the campaign and recently our
outgoing UN ambassador, John Danforth, suggested beefing up
the AU force with more troops and international monitors. President
Bush must now act on these recommendations.
If we successfully
fortify the AU, we can place our own power and prestige behind
a retooling of international law, institutions and commerce – for
the betterment of Sudan and the world.
Michael
M. Rosen is an attorney in San Diego. Daniel I. Silverberg
is an attorney in San Francisco.
This
piece first appeared at In
The National Interest
copyright
2005 In The National Interest
§
|
|
|
