What US’s Bolton got right about Darfur
By Marisa Katz, The New Republic Online
Oct 18, 2005 — Our controversial ambassador to the United Nations has been creating controversy again. This time, he obstructed a Security Council briefing on Darfur, in the process siding with Sudan’s closest allies. But John Bolton insisted he was trying to strengthen, rather than soften, the line on Darfur. “My concern with this briefing is that we don’t simply react from incident to incident, but that the Council try and look at the bigger picture and try to put a more effective, more comprehensive policy in place,” he explained to a perplexed press last week. “We have to consider whether the sanctions that are in place are working or whether there are other steps the Council should take, steps other than talking.” Diplomatic eyebrows rose in response.
There’s been some skepticism as to the motivations behind Bolton’s latest outburst. Perhaps he was really concerned about a discussion of the dreaded International Criminal Court. Or perhaps he just wanted a chance to bash international institutions. But let’s, for a moment, take Bolton at his word: He’s concerned about too much talk and too little action. And, with that in mind, let’s briefly review the U.N. record on Darfur.
Since the conflict began, back in early 2003, the Security Council has made a series of dramatic strategic shifts–from threatening to consider sanctions to considering sanctions to actually imposing a targeted sanctions regime. Not that it’s been enforced, mind you. After all, you can’t expect to freeze assets or ban travel by those responsible for the violence if the committee you appointed is still working out who is responsible for the violence. The Security Council has also authorized an African Union force so that there can be an African solution to an African problem. (In this case, it would seem that crimes against humanity are really only crimes against the humanity of Africa.) Unfortunately, the Council hasn’t gotten around to providing the troops with a sufficient mandate or resources to control the violence in Darfur. The 6,300 A.U. troops now patrolling a region the size of France can only report back on, not respond to, violations of the sham ceasefire. It’s a vulnerable position that has left five Nigerian peacekeepers, two contractors, and who knows how many civilians dead. The International Crisis Group estimates that Darfur needs 12,000 to 15,000 troops–with a mandate that allows civilian protection–for security to improve. Or at least that’s what the group said back in July. The U.N. hasn’t yet taken notice. Of course, the Security Council has been busy. First it was busy expressing its moral concern by deciding to refer crimes committed in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. And lately it’s been busy waiting for Sudan to decide to cooperate with that court.
Okay, so maybe Bolton was right. The United Nations has been pretty much useless in the face of continuing violence in Darfur. Too much talk, not enough action. But what if we applied the same criticism to the U.S. government and its approach to Darfur? Well, the website of the U.S. embassy in Khartoum lists 15 bullet points under “United States Accomplishments in Sudan.” Some of these, though, apply more to southern Sudan than to the Darfur region. And some are out of date, like “According to U.N. and A.U., violence in Darfur has substantially diminished” and “[The government of Sudan] stopped use of military aircraft in Darfur for offensive operations.” That leaves a few legitimate achievements, such as “During FY 2003-2005, provided more than $692 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur emergency.” And a few more questionable ones, such as, “Did not stand in the way of the adoption of Resolution 1593.” Not included among the list of achievements are the State Department’s periodic condemnations (three so far in October) of various attacks in Darfur. But perhaps State realizes that those are examples of how, as Bolton would say, “react[ing] from incident to incident” without having a “more effective, more comprehensive policy in place” leads to no tangible results.
Congress does not come off any better when faced with Bolton’s criticism. Sure, there were cries of “genocide” coming from Capitol Hill as far back as July 2004 (for all the good that did). And Congress succeeded in passing a resolution establishing a “National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur.” But for some reason it has not had the same luck with legislation imposing new sanctions, bolstering the A.U. mission, and advocating NATO reinforcement. The “Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005” has been languishing in committees since June.
A lot of talk and not enough action. It’s no wonder, then, that the violence in Darfur has continued–and lately escalated, with rebel attacks on peacekeepers and government militia assaults on refugees and internally displaced persons. It’s no wonder that humanitarian work is largely at a standstill. That the Sudanese government has made “no visible effort” to disarm its militias. That, as recently as last weekend, Khartoum was so unconcerned that it reiterated its call for the United States to remove old sanctions on Sudan, since “there were no more pending issues between them.”
If the United States really wants to end the killing in Darfur, or even if it just wants to demonstrate that the United Nations is an inefficient institution, it needs to lead by example and offer better alternatives along with its U.N. criticisms. Otherwise, there truly is no need to hear further updates on the situation in Sudan.