Recently, MaryScott O’Connor, the founder and proprietor of “MyLeftWing”, has exhorted the blogosphere to “wake the fuck up” about the ongoing slaughter of civilians in Darfur, a region in southern Sudan. MSOC cited with approval a recent New York Times article by the neocon author Nicolas Kristof, calling for more extensive American/European intervention in Sudan’s internal political situation.
Quite frankly, and with all due respect to MSOC and her obvious desire to take action in the face of a human tragedy that has claimed the lives of between 30,000 and 300,000 people and displaced perhaps two million more as refugees, I am appalled at MSOC’s uncritical acceptance of Kristof’s proposals, and have undertaken to rebut Kristof’s proposals one by one (or rather, MSOC’s summarisation of them).
ON EDIT: I CORRECTED THE FIGURES ON THE NUMBER OF DEAD IN DARFUR TO REFLECT VARYING ASSERTIONS, WITH THE LOWEST PUBLISHED FIGURE BEING 30,000 AND THE HIGHEST BEING 300,000.
In case it’s just too painful to read Kristof’s entire article, let me summarise his MOST excellent observations about what needs to happen – and how WE can help MAKE it happen
MSOC’s “Wake the Fuck Up!” Diary
First: Financial support for the African Union peacekeeping
Already done. The AU needs more troops, not more money, but the African countries don’t want to get more deeply involved.
Second: Expanded U.N. security force in Sudan
Sudan’s government said that it adamantly opposes this expanded force and that it will make Sudan a “graveyard” for these troops. Oh, and there’s also that little issue of international sovereignty (the UN can only send in troops when it’s invited), plus the issue of where the troops will be drawn. The US? None to spare in the numbers that are needed. What would it take, anyway, to stabilise the situation? 10,000 troops? 30,000? More? Who will contribute these troops, if not the Americans. The Brits? Sorry, none to spare–too busy propping up the US in Afghanistan. The Germans? I was based in Germany, had lots of NATO joint exercises with the Germans, field trained with their officers, and they are HOPELESS–the battle-hardened Sudanese would chew a German force into itty little bits. Well, the French are better, but the French aren’t going to send 10,000 troops into Sudan–unless they’re promised lots and lots of oil. There are no “UN troops”–the UN takes its troops from contributions from the armies of nation-states. No government has volunteered, or will volunteer, to send ten thousand of its best-trained troops into Darfur for this ill-defined mission (stop everybody fighting…and then what?).
Sudan threatens to pull out of AU
Friday 03 March 2006 5:22 PM GMTA Sudanese minister has said his country might pull out of the African Union if the AU’s Peace and Security Council approves replacement of the AU force in Darfur with a UN force, Aljazeera reports.
Alsammani al-Wasilla, Sudan’s minister of state for foreign affairs, has reiterated Khartoum’s rejection of the proposal for deployment of international troops in Darfur, Aljazeera’s correspondent in Khartoum said on Friday
AU foreign ministers are to meet on 10 March in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to decide on the transition, agreed upon earlier in principle.
Earlier, Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, warned Darfur would become a “graveyard” for any foreign military contingent entering the region against Khartoum’s will.
AP has quoted the top UN envoy in Sudan as saying that the Sudanese government has launched a campaign to stop a UN force from taking over peace-keeping duties from AU troops.
On Tuesday, Jan Pronk said an anti-UN climate is heating up strongly in the Sudanese capital, with threats and warnings, and fear that handing over to a UN force would put Sudan “in the same situation as Iraq a couple of years ago”.On 12 January, ambassadors on the AU’s Peace and Security Council agreed in principle to hand over peace-keeping to the UN but left a final decision to a ministerial meeting scheduled for Friday.
Third: Create no fly zone. Sudan is bombing its own people. Make it a no fly zone and tell them if they violate it we’ll bomb the everloving SHIT out of their airplanes. Their AIR FORCE.
Um, again–who is “we”? The UN hasn’t got an air force. Who has one? NATO? Ok, so that’s the French, the Brits, or the Americans. So MSOC is endorsing Kristof’s proposal that NATO, or an individual nation-state like the US (maybe that’s “we”) conduct a unilateral attack on Sudan in violation of the UN charter and in violation of the national sovereignty of Sudan. Attacking Sudan’s air force would be an act of war. And this is exactly what the United States did in Iraq. The UN is not going to pass a resolution endorsing a “no fly zone”, anyway, so this would have to be done outside the UN. Not only that, but “we” will need the cooperation and goodwill of the Sudanese government to broker and maintain peace within the borders of Sudan–and that’s going to be impossible to do once we “bomb the shit” out of their air force. Governments tend to hold grudges against nations who destroy their air force.
Fourth: The House should pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would impose sanctions and pressure on Sudan to stop the violence.
The United States has had total sanctions against Sudan since 1997. The violence has escalated since then. You can’t threaten somebody with a cessation of trade if you don’t trade with them.
The United States has imposed economic sanctions against Sudan since 1997, prohibiting trade and investment by U.S. businesses in Sudan. In April 2004, as part of a strategy to encourage the Sudanese peace process, the U.S. did not impose additional sanctions under the 2002 Sudan Peace Act.
Fifth, Mr. Bush should use the bully pulpit. He should talk about Darfur in his speeches and invite survivors to the Oval Office. He should wear a green ”Save Darfur” bracelet — or how about getting a Darfur lawn sign for the White House? (Both are available, along with ideas for action, from www.savedarfur.org.) He can call Hosni Mubarak and other Arab and African leaders and ask them to visit Darfur. He can call on China to stop underwriting this genocide.
Sudan harbours five suspects in a 1995 assassination attempt on Mubarak that nearly succeeded. I rather doubt he’s going to be making a jaunt to Sudan any time soon. And Bush has absolutely no leverage whatsoever with the Chinese. What if the Chinese tell Bush to get bent? What then? Does Bush threaten to cut off US trade with China? Threaten to intervene militarily in Sudan? Attack Chinese shipping and industries in Sudan’s ports? Sounds a bit risky to me.
Sixth, President Bush and Kofi Annan should jointly appoint a special envoy to negotiate with tribal sheiks. Colin Powell or James Baker III would be ideal in working with the sheiks and other parties to hammer out a peace deal. The envoy would choose a Sudanese chief of staff like Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a leading Sudanese human rights activist who has been pushing just such a plan with the help of Human Rights First.
The Sudanese sheikhs don’t trust Westerners. They look back on decades and even centuries of exploitation at the hands of Europeans and Americans and remember it all. The Sudanese sheikhs might trust an African–might–but what would the African envoy have to offer them? Not only that, but unless the Sudanese government is brought into the process (and it’s NOT interested), the sheikhs are going to (correctly) conclude that the envoy has no power to enforce the brokered agreement. I suspect Kristof has only proposed this last bit to help interject American influence into oil-rich southern Sudan:
Sudan contains proven reserves of 563 million barrels of oil, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. Because much of Sudanese oil exploration has been limited to the central and south-central regions, Sudanese Energy Ministry representatives estimate proven reserves at 700 million barrels and total reserves at five billion barrels, including potential reserves in northwest Sudan , the Blue Nile Basin , and the Red Sea area in eastern Sudan . Oil production has risen steadily since the completion of an export pipeline in July 1999. Crude oil production averaged 343,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2004, up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. In December 2004, Sudanese Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz announced that oil production will likely increase to 500,000 bbl/d in 2005. Sudanese production may reach 750,000 bbl/d by late 2006 if increases in output progress as planned.
Exploration and development of Sudan ‘s oil resources has been highly controversial. International human rights organizations have accused the Sudanese government of financing human rights abuses with oil revenues, including the mass displacement of civilians near the oil fields. Factional fighting in the South and rebel attacks on oil infrastructure have kept oil production and exploration from reaching full potential to date. In October 2004, for example, the Sudanese government prevented a militia attempt to sabotage the country’s main oil export pipeline.
The recent peace agreement between the government and the SPLA will likely lead to substantial investment in both production facilities and new exploration initiatives in the country. In January 2005, after the official signing of the CPA, Total SA, Marathon Oil Corporation, and the Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Company renewed their exploration rights in southern Sudan .
Department of Energy Report on SudanCross-posted at MyLeftWing and The Blogging Curmudgeon
ON EDIT: I CORRECTED THE FIGURES ON THE NUMBER OF DEAD IN DARFUR TO REFLECT VARYING ASSERTIONS, WITH THE LOWEST PUBLISHED FIGURE BEING 30,000 AND THE HIGHEST BEING 300,000.
