[Peace-discuss] Liberal postion on Darfur

[C. G. Estabrook]

"People of Darfur: You have suffered unspeakable violence, and America
has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two 
years, America joined with the international community to provide 
emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. 
Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide
additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union 
force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you. 
The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the 
African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more 
robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should 
provide logistics and other support. The regime in Khartoum is stopping 
the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not 
approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act."

This is the liberal position (for lack of a better name) on Darfur, and 
it hardly distinguishable from (a) the Bush administration's position, 
and (b) the  Clinton administration's position on Kosovo.  In both cases 
the  cry of genocide and "humanitarian" intervention is used to cover 
the USG's imperial machinations to reduce a state (respectively Sudan 
and Serbia) that was unreliable from the US/Israeli POV.

For Clinton, "NATO must act" -- and the situation of Kosovo got worse, 
but Serbia was brought to heel.  For Bush, "the United Nations must act" 
(and NATO nations should provide logistics and "other support"), and the 
situation in Darfur will probably get worse as Sudan, an oil-producing 
state (much of its production goes to China) is put under increasing 
pressure.

Of major media, only the BBC has said clearly that Khartoum's 
resistance to "peacekeepers" was based on "well-founded fears of the 
designs of Western governments on Sudan." Meanwhile US "peace" groups 
and the Israeli lobby have proclaimed "Out of Iraq and into Darfur!"

People honestly concerned about Darfur should listen to the calm common 
sense of Alex de Waal, a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at 
Harvard, an advisor to the African Union, and author of "Darfur: A Short 
History of a Long War":

"I don't believe there is a military solution. It will not defeat the 
holdout rebel groups. What it will do is, it will kill more people, 
create more hunger, create more displacement and make the situation even 
more intractable ... I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the 
solution to Darfur is a political solution. No solution can be imposed 
by any amount of arm twisting, any amount of bluster, any amount of 
military force. Even if we sent 100,000 NATO troops, we would not be 
able to impose a solution. The solution has to come through political 
negotiation."

--CGE