How do you solve a crisis like Darfur?

By Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times

March 13, 2007 — For anyone who thinks that “genocide” is absolutely the rock-bottom
possibility, keep an eye on Darfur.

The area of crisis has already spread from an area the size of France to
one the size of Western Europe, encompassing Chad and Central African
Republic while threatening to reignite the separate war between north
and south Sudan. And aid workers increasingly are finding themselves
under attack, so that humanitarian access is now lower than at any time
since 2004.

Six weeks ago, I invited readers to send in their own suggestions for
what we should do about Darfur, and the result was a deluge of proposals
from all over the world.

The common thread was a far more muscular approach. Several readers
suggested that we should dispatch a private force — supplied by a
military contractor like Blackwater USA — to fight the janjaweed
militia.

Many readers also recommended that we supply arms to Darfur refugees or
rebel groups. Some people suggested that we blockade Port Sudan, through
which Sudan exports oil.

Many also wanted a much tougher approach toward China, which has
protected Sudan diplomatically. Some advocated a boycott of all Chinese
products, while others favor a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

After inviting the discussion, I feel ungrateful in criticizing such
well-meaning suggestions — but I’m afraid that in the aftermath of the
Iraq war, aggressive military measures would be counterproductive. We
would be handing President Omar al-Bashir a propaganda victory and a
chance to rally support (“Those American crusaders are trying to steal
another Arab country’s oil!”).

Likewise, Darfur is already awash with guns and irresponsible armed
factions terrorizing civilians. The last thing Darfur needs is more
AK-47s.

As for China, a boycott would antagonize ordinary Chinese and cause
Beijing to dig in its heels. But I like the idea of activists like Eric
Reeves of organizing a “Genocide Olympics” campaign to shame Beijing
into better behavior.

Likewise, I approve of many suggestions that sought more television
coverage of Darfur. The slacker now is ABC News. The Tyndall Report,
which monitors network news coverage, found that ABC’s nightly newscasts
included just 11 minutes of coverage of Darfur in all of 2006, compared
with the 23 minutes ABC devoted to the false confession to the killing
of JonBenet Ramsey. If only a Darfuri would falsely confess to killing
JonBenet, maybe ABC would cover genocide …

I’ve posted more reader suggestions on my blog,
www.nytimes.com/ontheground. But in general, what Darfur needs isn’t a
single dramatic solution but a collection of incremental steps that add
to the pressure for a peace agreement there.

President Bush could ratchet up the pressure by giving a prime-time
speech on Darfur. He and Tony Blair could lead a summit on Darfur in
Europe. He could invite leaders of China and Egypt to join him on a trip
to a Darfur refugee camp in Chad.

Mr. Bush is expected to announce soon a series of financial sanctions on
Sudan (similar to those that have inflicted considerable pain on North
Korea and Iran), and those are welcome. Enforcing a no-fly zone would
also help add to the pressure.

But the top priority for Darfur is something that few people talk about —
a negotiated peace agreement. Peacekeepers are desperately needed, but
the only real hope for lasting security is a negotiated peace among all
the tribes of Darfur. And that is conceivable: an attempt last April
came close, but ultimately a flawed deal was reached that made the
conflict worse.

Human rights groups have laid out excellent proposals for a Darfur peace
process, and they need a vigorous push. To get an agreement, Khartoum
will have to make a few more concessions (such as naming a Darfuri vice
president, uniting the Darfur provinces, verifying the disarming of
janjaweed), and it will also Western countries should also pledge to help finance reconstruction and
compensation schemes, as incentives to wary Darfuris to back a peace
deal. So far the U.S. has spent $2.7 billion on Darfur, and it would be
a bargain to invest several hundred million dollars in a peace.
Otherwise, north central Africa may collapse completely into war and
anarchy, costing us countless billions and resulting in several million
deaths over the coming decade.