Sometimes you read something so perfectly correct that you just have to pass it on.
From Oxblog:
THE KILLING CONTINUES: In Darfur. Sadly, the coincidence of genocide in the Sudan with a presidential election in the United States has only benefitted the murderers.
I expect that within a matter of months, both Republicans and Democrats will look back and wonder how they did so little to prevent an impending disaster. Of course, if Europe wanted, it could take advantage of this golden opportunity to demonstrate that multilateralism is not just a codeword for amoral passivity.
Unfortunately, for many of our allies, multilateralism is just dressing on amoral passivity.
Whereas in our case, we were just, um, distracted?
Sometimes you read something so perfectly correct
And then you scroll down …
In all seriousness, it’s Oxblog’s beloved Great Iraqi Adventure that has done the most to prevent any intervention in Sudan.
Right…. We’re the leader, and those who we lead are now leaderless. So who’s to blame? The leader or the leaderless?
You can’t have it both ways, Sebastian. It’s a cornerstone of the democratic belief that the US *must* lead the world. It’s apparently a cornerstone of the republican belief that we should just say FU to the world and let them deal with their own problems.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that whole world is the responsibility of the US, if and only if European whiners shut up and quite opposing us in the UN and elsewhere.
I’m not the one trying to have it both ways. It is those who insist that Europe can and/or will choose to make a serious contribution to world security who ought to be discomfited by European indifference to genocide while their military power remains entirely disengaged from anywhere.
The European powers either do not care about the genocide in the Sudan, or they do not have the capability to do much about it.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that whole world is the responsibility of the US, if and only if European whiners shut up and quite opposing us in the UN and elsewhere.
But the US can’t do anything right now, it’s distracted by an election. Priorities. But at least there’s no whining going on.
Wow. It takes some serious chutzpah to take the fact that neither the US nor anyone else is doing anything to stop the genocide in Sudan, and use that as a basis for condemning those silly Europeans who are doing just as little as we are. This isn’t the first time you’ve done it, either, and the hypocrisy has been pointed out to you before.
Here’s a big, shiny hint: instead of exploiting the atrocities going on in Sudan to score cheap points against the EU, why not put the pressure on the country you actually have a voice in?
I think I agree with Sebastian in large part–Europe often tend toward passivity without strong US leadership. We saw that in Kosovo as well as Rwanda.
Also, the US really isn’t capable of putting a lot of force on the ground in Sudan–thanks to the Iraq adventure.
But that does not mean that US leadership requires the Europeans to shut up and stop opposing us. They should stop opposing sound policies. They may be opposing us in the UN on the Sudan, but even if they weren’t would we have an effective plan on offer?
I mean: A plan other than calling for Europe to deploy forces at our urging. This time it’s understandable that Europeans are reluctant to respond to such US leadership as there is.
I think I agree with Sebastian in large part–Europe often tend toward passivity without strong US leadership. We saw that in Kosovo as well as Rwanda.
I don’t think that “Rwanda” and “strong US leadership” should be mentioned in adjacent sentences. Not sure if that was how you meant it, but US leadership was absent when it came to Rwanda.
“A plan other than calling for Europe to deploy forces at our urging. This time it’s understandable that Europeans are reluctant to respond to such US leadership as there is.”
A) They shouldn’t need our urging.
B) They claim not require our leadership.
C) It isn’t understandable why they are reluctant to form their own plan.
“They may be opposing us in the UN on the Sudan, but even if they weren’t would we have an effective plan on offer?”
If multi-lateralism means anything substantial, it includes the idea that it isn’t all about the US.
I contend multi-lateralism doesn’t mean much of substance. It is incumbent on those who disagree to explain the European passivity with respect to an ongoing, well-known, genocide.
The situation exposes Kerry’s naivete regarding European troops in Iraq. If Europe cannot be roused to deal with a clear moral case–genocide–it cannot be expected to deal with the much murkier case of Iraq.
I don’t expect significant European help with any major security issue beyond its immediate borders. That view is not widely held here. Lack of US action in the Sudan exposes the fact that we are somewhat selfish in our desire to not open up a third non-contiguous dispute while potentially also having to deal with Iran and North Korea. Europe is not forced to deal with ANY of those other problems. Their unwillingness (or incapacity) shows a lack of interest in opening up a first front. I’m not bothered by lack of European interest in stopping genocide–even when they are not engaged elsewhere–I fully expect it.
I think you are misreading the comment. We saw a lack of US leadership in Rwanda, and since Europe is passive absent US leadership very little was done.
I would of course put it much stronger–Europe often opposes US leadership, and is mostly passive even when US leadership is present.
You’re not as powerless as you think you are.
NGO’s go where GO’s fear to tread.
Doctors without Borders
Save the Children
Sebastian is right, ofcourse. Our hands are tied at the moment, so why does France or Germany or any other country step in? Why are they instantly absolved?
That should read “why doesn’t France…”, not “does”.
Damn. There’s so much high-mindedness flying around here it just makes my head spin.
It’s been funny to see the Right embrace certain causes – defeating genocide in Africa, retroactive horror at the Iraq sanctions – but only within partisan contexts (Darfur proves that the EU is amoral/apathetic, oil-for-food proves that the UN is corrupt… funny, there was never much complaining from the right about corrupt Iraqi sanctions back when they were actually killing half a million Iraqi kids). I don’t hear much urging to actually solve this problem – I don’t hear Glenn Reynolds or Tacitus wagging their fingers at Bush and Kerry and Congress and demanding that action be taken to stop the genocide in Sudan. I hear the pettiest of points being made to further the “Europe Is Impotent” meme – a meme that got kicked into high gear because Old Europe wasn’t hot to trot about jumping into our fool’s errand in Iraq… a fool’s errand that has more and more of our military bogged down in a long and drawn-out conflict instead of being able to deter real threats and end humanitarian crises like the one in oh, say, Darfur.
I would love to see principled calls for action to end the genocide – from everyone, not just calls for the other guy to do the right thing to show what a dick he is, but calls for our own government to get off its ass and do something positive instead of sitting with its fingers in its ears and hoping there’s no one left to save by the time the smoke clears.
“I hear the pettiest of points being made to further the “Europe Is Impotent” meme – a meme that got kicked into high gear because Old Europe wasn’t hot to trot about jumping into our fool’s errand in Iraq… a fool’s errand that has more and more of our military bogged down in a long and drawn-out conflict instead of being able to deter real threats and end humanitarian crises like the one in oh, say, Darfur.”
It got kicked into high gear much earlier than Iraq.
Personally, my point isn’t about Europe. My point is aimed at Americans who believe it is wise to rely on Europe.
Ah, I thought the point was that people are dying in Darfur.
France doesn’t have any troops. The Brits have some troops, though. They could probably spare another 5K or so.
“Ah, I thought the point was that people are dying in Darfur.”
Nope, that was my point in a previous post. My point in this post is that now that the genocide has been going on for many months, European countries could have gotten involved if they cared.
This disinterest has lessons for those who wish to rely on European help–if those people want to address it.
Apparently they do not wish to do so at this time, since the discussion has repeatedly turned to the fact that the US isn’t going in to the Sudan.
Sebastian, I’m amazed at the mental gymnastics going on here. You are being critical of the inaction of others when the US is being equally inactive. The discussion isn’t returning to that point to change the topic, it’s to point out a flaw in your reasoning.
“Look over there, no one is helping that poor fellow being mugged. Yes, I realize that I’m not doing anything to help either, please don’t change the subject. The point to focus on how little the OTHER fellow is helping.”
Like it or not, Sebastian’s main point – that the Europeans are doing nothing in Darfur – is correct. His characterization of that inaction as “amoral passivity” is too kind.
That the US is also doing nothing is not a mitigating factor.
The sad but unsurprising fact is that few people care very much about Darfur, rhetoric notwithstanding.
That is true if you think that Europe has no independent responsibilities to prevent genocide. If you think that only the US can do it, or that Europe is not capable of acting without the US, your argument has force. You claim not to believe it, so I ask why they do not act. I suggest that the US does not act because it is currently engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq with possible conflicts on the horizon in Iran and North Korea and that it needs no further international ill will regarding invasions. European countries have none of those things to deal with.
The general tenor of the discussion has suggested that Bush shouldn’t have gone into Iraq because if he hadn’t he could have more easily done something about the Sudan. Ok. But even given that, the European powers did not go into Iraq. They are not deeply involved in Afghanistan. They are not involved at all with North Korea. They are not likely to be involved if there is necessary military action against Iran. Therefore, they ought to be available in the Sudan.
They aren’t.
And the fact that they aren’t means something.
You don’t want to talk about what that means, and that is not a flaw in my argument.
Double,
To accept your logic one has to ignore that we are helping to free people from horrible regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are helping to protect South Korea from North Korea.
We dedicate troops to help protect Germany and Japan.
We dedicate troops to help Bosnia and Kosovo
The list goes on and on…
Speaking of amazing mental gymnastics one has to perform to make a point… I’m giving you a 9.6 for your performance.
We dedicate troops to help protect Germany and Japan.
From what?
It’s my understanding that, in terms of foreign intervention, only the US has the support troops and infrastructure necessary.
A few years back, the EU was considering a separate, stand-alone rapid intervention/deployment force, but the US, acting through NATO, strongly objected. The EU backed off, but that plan may be coming up again.
googling around, i found the following: “President George W. Bush has iterated his support for the ERRF [European Rapid Reaction Force] proposal, so long as it does not duplicate or interfere with NATO capabilities and operations. This is a more positive view than expressed by his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who quipped that he was “a little worried” about the plans for the ERRF. He also remarked that the ERRF runs “the risk of injecting an instability into an enormously important alliance.”
[http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP37.htm — a 2001 report from the British American Security Information Council]
Since the US wants the EU to use NATO assets, this approach gave Turkey, not a member of the EU, essentially veto power over EU ops. (NATO functions essentially on consensus.) This was unacceptable to Greece, and thus has created a logjam in the creation of ERRF.
so let’s follow this through. The EU proposes developing its own rapid reaction force. In 2001, the US interferes with that decision, requesting that the EU work through NATO. This is an impossible request due to the differences in membership between the EU and NATO. So the EU nations have bogged down in the deployment of the force.
[no, i’m not blaming only the US. Like the US, the EU is tremendously short of heavy lift capability, from what i’ve read. this is a problem that the EU seems to be reluctant to solve. but since i’m not intimately familiar with NATO politics, i don’t know to what degree Rumsfeld’s comments were a real interference or treated as an excuse not to invest in transport assets.]
And now, a US-based commentator is castigating Europe for failing to ignore US demands, to develop its own rapid reaction force, and to intervene in a dispute which is so complex that even the US is still sitting on the sidelines trying to figure out what a response might look like.
hmmmmm. or, as another quick-responding electronic pundit might say, indeed.
Francis
I hear what you’re saying, fdl, but the US really does have a problem trying to work around the fact that Turkey’s in NATO but not the EU. Or that Greece has a long memory. Or that the previous two facts are apparently great excuses for inaction, for those so inclined to take advantage of them.
(drumming fingers)
Much as I hate to say it, the USA dropping the NATO stance would probably be the least-bad option. They really need that rapid-response force.
praktike,
France doesn’t have any troops.
Why not? There are so many causes they seem to “care” about…
My head is spinning like a top here.
If I understand the argument correctly, people are blaming Europe for not taking its slow-moving bureaucracy and ill-equipped-for-the-task military and launching a risky attack in the same manner as the hitherto not-entirely-successful USA.
To which the response might have to be, maybe us Europeans are just more honest in practice (while being snooty about it in theory, of course, but we are European after all) about our inability to play God with bullets. I might suggest that a similar reluctance to turn hubris into action could have helped prevent the USA getting tied up in the Middle East in the first place.
McDuff,
people are blaming Europe for not taking its slow-moving bureaucracy and ill-equipped-for-the-task military and launching a risky attack
Look, you are either part of the game or you are not. And if you are not, then you are just an arm chair quarter back. All this whining, about (supposedly) people of Iraq (not contracts with Saddam), yet not much stink about genocide in Sudan. France, as I recall, moved rather quickly when its economic interests were threatened on the Ivory Coast, no?
Stan, the US didn’t “liberate” Iraq – or Afghanistan, which I supported, and which NATO offered to participate in, for that matter – out of the goodness of its heart. It invaded Iraq because it saw it, erroneously, as part of the war on terror, and as a strategically-located and easily-taken spot in the Mideast that would help “transform” the region through a cockamamie democratic domino theory.
Iraq was not a “humanitarian intervention” in the least. If the US was in the business of spreading humanitarianism – an odd position for conservatives to be so wholeheartedly commiting themselves to these days, especially little more than half a decade after they railed against intervention in Kosovo – then the US would be already in the Sudan. As it is, we’re not. Like the French, the Germans, and everyone else on the right’s s**t list, the United States goes where it needs to – or thinks it needs to – and the rest is largely, as Sebastian says, amoral passivity.
Sadly, I think I agree with almost everything in this thread. Sucks to be me.
Iron,
Hmm.. Kosovo… Please explain the need for UN to intervene in Kosovo. That’s Europe, right? Different continent, France, Germany, Russia, etc… Their backyard, no?
I agree with a lot in this thread, but just to prove I’m not anarch, not almost everything.
Specifically: I agree that Europe should do whatever it can in the Sudan, and I don’t think it is. I also think that it’s a pity our army is otherwise occupied just now, since that means that we can’t do enough. (Though we could do more than we’re doing.) I disagree, though, about the implications for multilateralism. The idea is not that we should wait around for Europe or whoever to do whatever they would have done had we not been involved; it’s that we should engage them and try to work out some sort of solution together. This won’t always work, but sometimes it will. And what sorts of solutions we’ll come up with will not necessarily look like what Europe and/or the US would come up with alone. Either side might manage to exercise leadership (meaning here not that one side or the other has the ‘responsibility’ to lead, which may or may not be true but is beside my present point, but rather that one party might manage to convince another to do things it wouldn’t have done on its own.)
“it’s that we should engage them and try to work out some sort of solution together.”
Except we did try to do that, and had our UN resolutions regarding a deadline for the killings to stop before sanctions would be imposed blocked by France.
Ooops, not UN, I meant US. Why should’ve US intervened into Europe’s backyard?
It causes me mild internal bleeding to say this, but SH is right, in the limited sense that France’s obstruction of UN and/or EU measures is quite real, and undeniably repellant.
“Nothing easier.” I can almost hear him say it, see his hand waving lazily as he moves effortlessly past all of that suffering. Amoral passivity indeed.
Why should’ve US intervened into Europe’s backyard?
Er, because Europe was obviously not up to the task, and even they knew it. That’s why Chirac personally lobbied the Clenis to get involved in Bosnia, because he knew that only the US had the means to enforce a settlement. With respect to Kosovo, only the US (via NATO) had the military capacity to do the job. To allow the Balkans to fester would have been the end of NATO, at the same time the U.S. was committed to expanding it in Eastern Europe.
Why should’ve US intervened into Europe’s backyard?
I think that one can take Albright’s point and say that the notion of forced explusion by boxcar was just too much of a parallel to ignore (I leave it to others to argue over whether it actually happened, whether it was boxcars or whatever, I would just note the whole notion was something that drove intervention)
At any rate, Sebastian’s point suggests a historically liberal pov that we should engage in these sorts of things where we alleviate suffering and uphold some sort of universalist values overseas. (I would note that this is why the left is often associated with Communism, in that it suggests a similar world wide program) I’m cool with that, but I am curious if Sebastian is as well.
Let’s not forget that the US, during this current administration, did do something about Sudan:, The Sudan Peace Act. This addressed the civil war and violence in the south of Sudan, as well as the chattel slavery going on there.
Apparently, most people have forgotten this or do not care about this. After all, the Sudan Peace Act was promoted by Christian groups because among other things the civil war in the south was among other things a Muslim vs Christian+animist conflict.
Darfur is in the middle west of Sudan, the conflict is Arab Muslim vs. black Muslim. Some reports suggest that Darfur is being used as a training ground for terrorists, and that Syrian supplied poison gas has been used on some villages.
“…the conflict is Arab Muslim vs. black Muslim.”
It’s a heck of a lot more complicated than that, as one could learn from any number of articles I’ve linked to over the past months. Just for starters, most people there are of mixed genetics.
praktike,
Er, because Europe was obviously not up to the task, and even they knew it.
Ah! So, why should they be the ones grading the “global test”?
“Just for starters, most people there are of mixed genetics.”
Genetically accurate, but is it socially accurate? Arab-Muslims in the Sudan (and in some other countries) seem to consider themselves different, whatever the genetics might say.
Stan LS: So, why should they be the ones grading the “global test”?
You really should read a quote in context before you pick up talking points out of context and re-broadcast them. Otherwise, you risk asking questions, like this one, that have no meaning. 😉
“you risk asking questions, like this one, that have no meaning. ;-)”
But Jes, that’s more sensitive flip flop! How can we Jane Fonda if retreating Vietnamese boy whenever votes against military tax hike?
I suggest that the US does not act because it is currently engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq with possible conflicts on the horizon in Iran and North Korea and that it needs no further international ill will regarding invasions.
You seem to take it as obvious that, were the US not engaged as you describe, we would be intervening militarily in Sudan. I find this hard to believe.
“You seem to take it as obvious that, were the US not engaged as you describe, we would be intervening militarily in Sudan. I find this hard to believe.”
I think it is fairly likely that we would. We took the lead in Bosnia and Kosovo didn’t we? We took the lead in Gulf War I didn’t we?
But even if we would not, that doesn’t relieve the non-engaged European powers of their responsibilities does it?
The most that would mean is that we would be guilty of amoral passivity in the face of genocide. It wouldn’t argue against the fact that the European countries are amorally passive in the face of genocide. The fact is, we are engaged, they are not. We could probably still do something if we were willing to stretch even further. We probably should. But none of that lets Europe off the hook.
My point remains that those who would rely on significant European help would do well to explain why Europe does nothing significant in the easy moral case of the Sudan. I suggest that it is both because they do not have much military power available and because they don’t particularly care. The second is especially evident in French obstruction. I further suggest that those two factors ought to be noticed in arguments which rely on significant European help in the War on Terrorism.
If you disagree, I welcome alternate explanations or distinctions which would make intervening against genocide in the Sudan less likely than intervening for whatever Kerry means when he says “get the job done” in Iraq. Thus far I have seen “America isn’t doing anything” which is both untrue (what we have been trying to do has been obstructed by the French) and completely off point. I have also seen “If Bush hadn’t bogged the US down in Iraq, the US could have done something.” Arguable, but also completely off point. None of the European powers are bogged down in Iraq. None of the European powers are barred from acting by US inaction. Yet European inaction remains a fact. And if that doesn’t saying something about the effectiveness of justice-oriented treaties in the modern world, the whole concept is resistant to verification–just like European commitment to non-proliferation.
How can we Jane Fonda if retreating Vietnamese boy whenever votes against military tax hike?
Easy – by serious challenges if the character and the leadership of the character and the vision is four more years four more years four more years.
side, jes,
Great no one answered my question. Great post by Sebastian, by the way.
“The fact is, we are engaged, they are not.”
Zackly.
You seem to take it as obvious that, were the US not engaged as you describe, we would be intervening militarily in Sudan. I find this hard to believe.
Why so hard to believe? Sudan has oil right? 😉
Easy – by serious challenges if the character and the leadership of the character and the vision is four more years four more years four more years.
And Iraqi freedom stay the course freedom is on the march Libya Hussein would have made weapons 9/11.
And international allies dead will walk draft coalition of the bribed damage to environment will reverse vietnam hero reporting for duty respected in the world…
Stan LS: side, jes,
Great no one answered my question.
Yeah, guys, stop being a nuisance. 🙂
Har, har.. Its all fun and games till Kerry looses this election 🙂
I have a post that actually touches on Sudan, here, rather than haring off onto far more important topics, by the way.
“I think it is fairly likely that we would. We took the lead in Bosnia and Kosovo didn’t we? We took the lead in Gulf War I didn’t we?”
Rwanda.
Stan LS: Great no one answered my question.
That’s because it was meaningless, and therefore unanswerable. 😉 That was my point.
“Easy – by serious challenges if the character and the leadership of the character and the vision is four more years four more years four more years.”
“And Iraqi freedom stay the course freedom is on the march Libya Hussein would have made weapons 9/11.”
“And international allies dead will walk draft coalition of the bribed damage to environment will reverse vietnam hero reporting for duty respected in the world… ”
For the children.
Just because it tugged on the eyes.
Jes,
That’s because it was meaningless
What? The “global test” part? Yea, my point exactly.
What? The “global test” part? Yea, my point exactly.
So why did you bother to ask a deliberately meaningless question, and why were you complaining that a question you knew was meaningless wasn’t answered?
d-p-u: This is way, way stale, but Sebastian is right about what I meant–there was no strong US leadership in Rwanda, and Europe didn’t act without it.
Stan LS: Great no one answered my question.
Matt – Yeah, I figured. Thanks for the confirmation.
Jes,
why were you complaining that a question you knew was meaningless wasn’t answered?
“Next.”
“Next.”
Okay. Safe and secure spread freedom and liberty three-quarters held to account kind of one of those got policies to continue raise the standards?
Blah, blah, blah, Cheney’s gay daughter, blah, blah, blah, Laura never had a real job, blah, blah, blah, not *my* SUV, blah, blah, blah…
As the posting rules note, ObWi don’t have unlimited storage space. Take it outside please.
But even if we would not, that doesn’t relieve the non-engaged European powers of their responsibilities does it?
My first comment on this thread makes it very clear that I agree with you on this.
We took the lead in Bosnia and Kosovo didn’t we? We took the lead in Gulf War I didn’t we?
And perhaps it is worth asking why we had much more European support in those cases than in Iraq.
“And perhaps it is worth asking why we had much more European support in those cases than in Iraq.”
It is also perhaps worth asking how much of that support was crucial to success.
Sebastian: It is also perhaps worth asking how much of that support was crucial to success.
Is it? Why do you think that question is worth asking?
Hey, don’t be dissing Poland now… or am I getting my wars mixed up?