The Need for Leadership in Darfur
By Eddie Beaver, The Weekly Standard
The United States can–and should–step in and lead the fight against genocide in the Sudan.
Jan 6, 2004 — Nearly 60 years ago, Allied soldiers liberated Nazi concentration camps throughout Europe, bringing an end to the nightmarish Nazi system that utilized factories of mass death to eliminate enemies and despised ethnic and religious groups. The pledge “never again” was heard then, and various agreements were solemnly made by leaders to ensure genocide never occurred again.
Over the decades, much has happened to cheapen the lofty rhetoric of the victorious World War II leaders. Genocide or something close to it has happened in the Congo, Burundi, Uganda, East Timor, Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and most recently the Darfur region of Sudan. In all but Kosovo, the international community ignored the horror of mass murder. The few interventions were thrown together haphazardly with peacekeepers whose hands were tied by weak-willed mandates that did more to aid the perpetrators of slaughter than the victims.
Darfur was supposed to be different. It came in the wake of successes by leading nations who intervened to halt conflict and potential mass murder in Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. President Bush had achieved more towards peace in Sudan than any previous leader. The United Nations, troubled over failures in the past, seemed eager to apply the painful lessons learned, and committed to true reform. The African Union appeared ready to accept the challenge of ending war on its territory, and the European Union claimed it was ready to support admirable goals like ending the slaughter in Darfur.
All have failed miserably. At times, the United States has seemed to put more stock in ending the war between Sudan and well-armed rebels in the South than in dealing with genocide in Darfur, seen as a tragic sideshow. The U.N. leadership has been unwilling to take a stand, while many U.N. member states (Egypt, Pakistan, India, Russia, China) are directly profiting from the genocide committed by the Sudanese regime. The African Union has refused to confront the Sudanese regime over its extermination agenda, and the European Union is more concerned with opposing America’s position (that a genocide is actually happening) than taking action.
MANY PEOPLE readily accept the shortcomings of the United Nations, African Union, and European Union. But what of America’s leadership role? The United States has been generous in giving humanitarian assistance to Darfur survivors. But by feeding them–not rescuing the dying and endangered–the victims are only being served a last meal. And a dangerous precedent is being set: Though America will not tolerate terrorism against the United States, it seems more than willing to allow regimes that terrorize their own people. Emboldened despots from Uzbekistan to China to North Korea are sure to take note.
MEANWHILE, a mighty struggle is underway in Iraq, where a considerable portion of America’s brave military force is fighting an insurgency hell-bent on destroying that country’s future. There are serious resources and commitments invested in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, the now democratic Afghanistan. Without a doubt, America’s top military priority must be victory in Iraq. So is there anything even left for Darfur?
If the United States chose to put boots on the ground in an area the size of France, we would likely find comrades-in-arms in Britain, Australia, Canada, and perhaps a number of African countries disgusted with the African Union’s failure–most notably Rwanda and Uganda. There is some precedent in the successful Operation Provide Comfort, which saved the Kurds from Saddam’s wrath and helped them to become an independent entity, free of Iraq’s tyranny. Less complex and costly operations could diminish the Sudanese military machine and the potency of its genocide effort. U.S. Navy destroyers and submarines could enact a blockade of Port Sudan. Cruise missiles could strike known Janjaweed and Sudanese Army (they’re widely reported to often be one and the same) camps and bases. A no-fly zone over Darfur could be set up with aircraft based out of Chad.
In the end, it is understandable why America did not intervene to halt genocide and mass murder in much of the world for the past 60 years. Until George W. Bush’s presidency, America was either handicapped by Cold War reality or misled by politicians who mistrusted and misused the military. This is not so today. A president of honor and vision sits in the White House, emboldened by the threat of terrorism and fascism to defend America and her ideals. A fascist, terrorist supporting regime is exterminating its citizens by the tens of thousands. Why then, under the most fervent advocate of freedom and peace since Ronald Reagan, is America not justly using its mighty military force to stop them?
Petty Officer Third Class Eddie Beaver is stationed on the USS Kitty Hawk.