More than words on Darfur
Editorial, The Journal Sentinel
June 5, 2005 —
President Bush made one of his rare comments on the continuing slaughter in Darfur in east Africa last week. But what he called the slaughter – “genocide” – should speak volumes. Unfortunately, his administration and the rest of the world have not given the situation the attention that is required both by the word and by the awful reality it portrays.
Darfur is a region of Sudan where, in the name of suppressing an insurgency, the government and government-backed militias are perpetrating slaughter. As many as 400,000 people may have been killed in the region since February 2003.
When he was secretary of state, Colin Powell visited the region and later judged the killings there to be serious enough to be called genocide. Bush repeated that word on Wednesday.
Bush’s use of the word is important because, when it signed the 1948 Genocide Convention, the United States vowed “to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide.” Unfortunately, the U.S. response to the legal and moral challenge posed by Darfur has fallen short.
Congress recently voted for $50 million to aid Darfur war refugees, and the administration has promised to help provide transportation for a 7,700-member African military force for Darfur. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick was recently dispatched to survey the situation. This is certainly doing something, but the ongoing slaughter proves that what’s been done is inadequate – and the rest of the world hasn’t done much more.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, at least, hopes to pay more attention to the needs of Africa. Next month, at a meeting in Scotland, Blair is expected to ask members of the Group of Eight industrialized nations to double their $25 billion-a-year aid to Africa. On Wednesday, however, Bush brushed aside Blair’s proposal, saying simply that “it doesn’t fit our budgetary process.” Bush has also said that, while the U.S. is willing to send some money and logistical help to Darfur, it won’t send troops.
But if the situation there is truly genocidal, if the government in Sudan is planning or perpetrating the extermination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group – and that is what genocide is – then shouldn’t the use of force be at least considered? Shouldn’t that be on the agenda when the G-8 meets next month? Shouldn’t it be discussed at the United Nations and elsewhere?
Meantime, there is at least one thing the administration can do by itself and that is to support the Darfur Accountability Act. That measure would target Sudan officials with a variety of measures, none of which would significantly imperil the “budgetary process.”
The measure, which is languishing in Congress, seeks a new U.N. resolution authorizing sanctions against the regime; imposes an arms embargo; freezes the assets of and denies visas to government officials; and calls for the appointment of a special presidential envoy for Sudan.
If the situation in Darfur is bad enough to be called genocide by Bush, then he needs to do more than he has, as does the rest of the world. Swift enactment and enforcement of the Darfur Accountability Act is one way Bush can do that.