by Charles
Since the peace agreement last May, the ongoing genocide in Darfur has not abated. The Washington Post:
These new forces [a rebel faction and the Sudanese military], armed with expanded weapons stocks and backed by government planes making bombing runs, are augmenting the Janjaweed militias that already were raping, looting and killing their way through Darfur, a vast, arid region the size of Texas. Since the fighting began in 2003, war and disease have killed as many as 450,000 people in Darfur and driven more than 2 million from their homes.
Just so you know before continuing, the rest is more of the same old right wing cause du jour, and not well researched either.
The situation could further worsen:
Human rights groups gave warning that the region was poised to topple into an abyss of rape and genocide if African Union soldiers leave at the end of the month as scheduled.
The Sudanese Government is blocking the arrival of a UN force and yesterday appeared to order the immediate withdrawal of AU soldiers.
If the 7,000 AU soldiers leave this month (due to the expiration of their mission), Khartoum will reportedly send 10,000 of its own troops to Darfur as part of a "peace force". UN Security Council Resolution 1706 calls for the deployment of UN troops and "…invites the consent of the Government of National Unity for this deployment…". According to the New York Times:
But State Department officials were quick to say the resolution did not explicitly require Sudan’s consent. “This resolution invites Sudanese consent,” Kristen Silverberg, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, said at a briefing in Washington after the vote. “Nothing requires Sudanese consent.”
However, the Economist muddies this interpretation:
Although a part of the UN resolution was passed under Chapter Seven of the UN’s charter, which can authorise the use of coercive force, the whole of the resolution was not. In any case, nobody dreams that a UN force could or should fight its way into Sudan to protect Darfur.
Given this, it’s unclear to me whether the UN can or cannot authorize coercive force. The UN has not given the Darfur the genocide label, so with the UN Genocide Conventions uninvoked, there is no legally binding compulsion to act. Article 1 states:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
One of the five definitions of genocide under Article 2 is:
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Given hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced, it seems to me that Darfur fits the definition. Amnesty International has more on the particulars. Strangely enough, one of the Darfur rebel factions has joined the Janjaweed and Sudanese army in murdering civilians, rebelling from the rebellers as it were. In another sign of the deteriorating situation, a Red Cross driver was killed in norther Darfur last week. Passion of the Present is a good source for the current goings on.
There are precious few options. Pressuring al Bashir to comply is one, but so far China (which has significant oil interests and influence) has balked. So has the Arab League. Arming the Darfur rebels is an option, and sending in a non-UN military force is yet another (such as NATO), but the chances of these occurring are faint without substantial commitment by the U.S. and its allies. Sanctions are unlikely, again because of China and perhaps France (which also has oil interests). In the absence of action, Pham and Krauss see a countdown to genocide, the way things are going, and it would be unfortunate for a UN Secretary General to repeat the same words spoken over eight years ago:
Looking back now, we see the signs which then were not recognized. Now we know that what we did was not nearly enough — not enough to save
RwandaDarfur from itself, not enough to honour the ideals for which the United Nations exists. We will not deny that, in their greatest hour of need, the world failed the people ofRwandaDarfur.
we’ll keep ignoring it.
does it surprise anyone that a country so heavily in favor of torture, so indifferent to the fact that 40,000+ Iraqi civilians have been killed in their name, so gleeful at the prospect of nuking Tehran, isn’t that concerned about the suffering of a bunch of poor people in a desert on the other side of the world ?
Diminished expectations
Now is the time for the U.S. to step in. Why? Because we can.
While a generally good post, the most critical sentence to me is “There are precious few options.”
Indeed there are. One can easily imagine that the number of options has been reduced by unnecessary actions taken by this Administration in the last few years, from tying much of the Army down in Iraq, to making threatening noises against Iran (and even Venezuela) which will look even more hollow if we send substantial numbers of troops to Sudan, to not alienating many countries who could potentially help by trying to grab all of the spoils of Iraq for itself and by treating diplomacy as a four letter word.
Unfortunately, limiting our ability to deal with events as they occur seems to be a theme for this Administration. It is the stated goal of at least the Grover Norquist wing of the Republican party with respect to budgeting. It seems to be a driving force in education policy, where No Child Left Behind will likely prevent schools from doing more than teaching to standardized tests if they want to continue to receive federal funds. It certainly is the effect of the push to change the off-limit status of environmentally protected areas in Alaska and the Gulf coast in exchange for a few months worth of oil consumption.
When the history of this era is ultimately written, the theme of foreclosing the future’s potential will loom large.
Charles:
What is the US policy about this, other than make mild noises and do nothing? Its a little tedious to read about China and France somehow going along with genocide, when there appears to be little evidence of US leadership to do anything about it. Maybe our oil interests are also a cause of our inaction, and our posture as a practical matter no different than China or France?
The UN is ill suited for this type of problem — an intra-country conflict similar to a civil war. What is necessary is for a private coalition willing to threaten Sudan and arm the oppressed as a deterrent, but expect that to simply draw the conflict out for a generation. The central Sudanese government will not abandon its tactics unless the price is very very high, and even then they will simply wait out the patience of outsiders in order to renew their campaign another day.
What is probably necessary in the partition of Sudan, which is also something for which the UN structure is completely unsuited.
Just so you know before continuing, the rest is more of the same old right wing cause du jour, and not well researched either.
If only this were the crawl line beneath Bush’s speeches …
Given hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced, it seems to me that Darfur fits the definition.
No, it doesn’t. It’s awful, it’s criminal, it’s chaotic, and it’s cruel, but there isn’t sufficient evidence that the Sudanese government or the militias are attempting to actually exterminate groups of people as opposed to driving them from certain areas in order to deny support to the rebels. That is why the UN hasn’t used the term “genocide.” This is, naturally, debatable.
Also note that both sides in this conflict have engaged in atrocities. And that is not an argument against intervention, but worth taking into consideration.
There is also a problem with western nations intervening in that it might make things worse rather than better, as it will replace the current source of the conflict (largely water and grazing rights as well as sucession attempts by rebel groups along ethnic lines) to one of a more religious nature. However, the threat of intervention or actual limited intervention may go a long way toward resolving the conflict, unless it encourages rebel groups to not comprimise on peace treaties (as was likely the case in recent peace negotiations).
Lastly, in reference to your posting two years ago on this at Tacitus, Charles, you mentioned “Arab-on-black mass murder”. Both sides in the conflict are black in pigmentation.
dmbeaster: “Maybe our oil interests are also a cause of our inaction,”
What oil interests would those be, dmbeaster? Which fields? Which U.S. company?
So far as I’m aware — and my knowledge in this is not encyclopedic, so it’s conceivable there’s information I’m not aware of, but if so, I’d like to be presented with it, there are no U.S. companies involved in exploration of, or pumping of, or in any other with with Sudan.
So, if I’m not missing something, you’re simply making stuff up out of whole cloth, which doesn’t reflect well on your insights.
But if you have information that supports your claim, please do present it.
Otherwise: might it be threat of alien abductions keeping us from dropping the 101st Airborne on Khartoum? Could it be giant motherships that are also a cause of our inaction?
Or is it the fact that in his house at R’lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming that is the true cause?
My speculation on this is as well-supported as yours.
Charles, although you’ve used Darfur at times to ride some of your, and the right’s, pet hobby horses, such as knocking Europe or the UN or Kofi Annan, you’ve kept that under restraint in this post, and this is a generally good post. Kudos.
“This is, naturally, debatable.” [whether it’s genocide]
Indeed, and I take Samantha Powers’ side.
“Both sides in the conflict are black in pigmentation.”
The leaders in Khartoum, not much. And the ethnic component to the janjaweed is real and important.
And when you say “both sides,” you’re badly conflating the two different civil war conflicts with the attacks on the refugees and the genocide, which is relatively unrelated. The people upon whom the genocide is being inflicted aren’t a “side” in either of the civil conflicts, but are innocent civilians.
What oil interests would those be, dmbeaster? Which fields? Which U.S. company?
To cut to the chase: U.S. oil companies haven’t been able to do business in Sudan since 1997 when it was placed on the list of nations sponsoring terrorism.
That said is it not possible, Gary, that the Bush Admin hasn’t acted more forcefully in Sudan because American oil interests would like to return?
It’s a theory some have, anyway.
It’s a theory some have, anyway.
they didn’t even mention Cheney’s former fondness for Iran! i’m disappointed.
“That said is it not possible, Gary, that the Bush Admin hasn’t acted more forcefully in Sudan because American oil interests would like to return?”
That seems odd. I would think it far more likely that US oil interests wanting to return would be angling for intervention.
The leaders in Khartoum, not much.
Really?
And the ethnic component to the janjaweed is real and important.
I’m not sure what you mean here.
The people upon whom the genocide is being inflicted aren’t a “side” in either of the civil conflicts, but are innocent civilians.
I understand that. Are you saying that the attacks have nothing to do with the civil war? Regardless, my meaning is that posing this as an Arab (meaning ethnicity defined by language) vs Black (ethnicity based on pigmentaion) conflict is not particularily helpful or accurate.
That seems odd. I would think it far more likely that US oil interests wanting to return would be angling for intervention.
With what army?
It seems to me that the options offered by Charles, while worth considering for what they are, are symptomatic options limited to political and/or military responses that do not offer a solution for the core problem in Darfur. I would not be impressed by a doctor only offering to fix the symptoms of my cancer while having no plan to remove the tumor. The root cause of the violence is environmental, related to the increasing desertification of Darfur over recent history resulting in a breakdown of the previously symbiotic and generally congenial relationship between herdsmen and farmers. Until the core problem is addressed, all the political and military solutions will be mere band aids needing to be constantly reapplied.
Question: What does the US stand to gain from preventing the violence in Darfur? Nations do not go to war or dispatch armed forces for altruistic reasons. War has to pay. We may like to think we are an exception to this, but we are not. There was a reason nothing was done for Rwanda and it had nothing to do with “signs which then were not recognized.” So what would the US stand to gain by applying force to end the violence? If we can not think of anything, then there is no reason to assume that the US will intervene.
Re DPU’s second to last paragraph (3:50pm): American axiom (?): The application of US force always makes things better.
Charles, I think this is one of your best posts.
With what army?
Great. Bush has brought us to the point where the schoolyard retort, “you and what army?” is actually an incisive foreign-policy retort to any American demand.
Why should our baby killing army do anything in Sudan? Let’s let Euros show us how it’s really done.
Good post. I only wish I could see what to do.
“That said is it not possible, Gary, that the Bush Admin hasn’t acted more forcefully in Sudan because American oil interests would like to return?”
Theories about oil as motivation tend to be like conspiracy theories in general (which also means they can be true at times, of course): useful for any purpose, adaptable to explain anything and everything.
It would be a far more logical theory to explain that the reason we’re intervening in Sudan is to change the government so we can get the oil contracts that we don’t have, wouldn’t it?
But we’re not doing that.
Oil is a real motivation for plenty of foreign policy, as is obvious; and oil companies always want contracts to drill: duh; but it’s not The Only Explainer Of All Situations And All Policies, and acting as if it is is, ah, inaccurate; insufficient, anyway. (For instance, a lot of ink was spilled and hot air expended about how The Only Reason We Attacked The Taliban Was Because Of The Desired Pipeline, which is just silly; ditto, Saddam Hussein was happy to sell us oil.)
Really. The racist component to the janjaweed attacks on the dark-skinned people is exceedingly well documented; it’s outright ethnic cleansing, as well as mass killing, to the point of genocidal.
What I said above.
Janjaweed:
Further on the ethnic component:
There’s about 80 gajillion websites and papers and reports on the ethnic basis of the genocide.
So when you say “posing this as an Arab (meaning ethnicity defined by language) vs Black (ethnicity based on pigmentaion) conflict is not particularily helpful or accurate,” I have to say that ignoring that the ethnic component is a key part of it, and that part of that ethnic component is based on skin color prejudice, isn’t helpful or accurate, to the best of my knowledge.
I could pull plenty of cites from my own blog alone with quotes from janjaweed going on about dark skins.
“What does the US stand to gain from preventing the violence in Darfur? Nations do not go to war or dispatch armed forces for altruistic reasons.”
Really? Why was the U.S. in Somalia? Why do countries contribute and dispatch armed forces on UN peacekeeping missions, aside from the poor nations that can use the income? Why is Canada in Afghanistan? Why are Italy and Germany committing forces to Lebanon?
Your assertion is a considerable over-statement. Nations commit armed forces for a variety of reasons, including, at times, altruistic ones, and humanitarian ones, and to feel good about themselves for doing so.
Really. The racist component to the janjaweed attacks on the dark-skinned people is exceedingly well documented; it’s outright ethnic cleansing, as well as mass killing, to the point of genocidal.
The Janjaweed are not the Khartoum leadership.
Also, from the Wikipedia entry: The Janjaweed (Arabic: جنجويد, variously transliterated Janjawid, Janjawed, Jingaweit, Jinjaweed, Janjawiid, Janjiwid, etc.) is a blanket term used to describe mostly armed black Arab gunmen in Darfur, western Sudan.
The Janjaweed, as the link mentions, are largely Baggara. Here is a Google image link to the Baggara. Here is a photo of some Janjaweed, from Flickr.
what cleek said with the added wrinkle that, seriously, when has the US as a nation truly given a damn about Africa anyway? We have fits and starts of compassion towards individual problems — nowadays Sudan, previously Ethiopia, etc. — but a serious, systemic and most importantly sustained assault on African problems like debt, desertification, lack of water, etc? I can’t think of anything except maybe combatting AIDS.
It would be a far more logical theory to explain that the reason we’re intervening in Sudan is to change the government so we can get the oil contracts that we don’t have, wouldn’t it?
In the intervention for oil scenario, you’d have to change the government, as opposed to setting up buffers in Darfur…and how are you going to explain a march on Khartoum to the world (even if such a thing was possible in 2006)? Then there would be the occupation and the inevitable guerrilla campaign, as I’m quite sure al-Bashir and friends wouldn’t go quietly into the night. Maybe the oil companies would prefer not to spend money on security for their installations and assets?
So, wouldn’t it be even more logical – and less expensive – to announce that “After great strides by al-Bashir recently, we’ve determined Sudan no longer supports terrorism”, shift Sudan from column A (Terrorist-lovers) to column B (Misunderstood good eggs) and presto, Chevron and Exxon are back in the hunt.
Maybe it’s not really a driving dynamic, but it doesn’t sound particularily tinfoil hat, either.
Anarch: “what cleek said”
What cleek said: “they didn’t even mention Cheney’s former fondness for Iran! i’m disappointed.”
Cheney had a former fondness for Iran?
I’m thinking cleek may have meant “Iraq.”
spartikus : “So, wouldn’t it be even more logical – and less expensive – to announce that ‘After great strides by al-Bashir recently, we’ve determined Sudan no longer supports terrorism’, shift Sudan from column A (Terrorist-lovers) to column B (Misunderstood good eggs) and presto, Chevron and Exxon are back in the hunt.”
Tell me, in 2002-3, wouldn’t it have been even more logical – and less expensive – to announce that “After great strides by Saddam Hussein recently, we’ve determined Iraq no longer supports terrorism”, shift Iraq from column A (Terrorist-lovers) to column B (Misunderstood good eggs) and presto, Chevron and Exxon are back in the hunt?
Certainly there are good explanations for why this did not happen, but if you can explain how your own logic is flawed, I’d be interested.
Gary, regarding your post on the ethnic component (to whit):
Not a single word of this refers to skin color. I’m not denying that there is an ethnic component to these atrocities, nor religious, nor pigmentation; but posing this as an “Arab vs Black” genocide leads westerns to substitute their own personal stereotypes and preconceptions, when in fact most Sudanese are actually black in pigmentation, both Arab and non-Arab.
It probably would have made a lot of (extremely cynical and amoral) good sense, but then Cheney, Rummie and Wolfie amongst others had this little theory of theirs on how to position the United States favourably for the next few centuries.
A Sudanese intervention, Sudan being in the geopolitical boonies as compared to Iraq, just wouldn’t enhance American power in the same way.
Qaddafi went from column A to B.
Warning, Wikipedia entry: Demographics of Sudan.
Sudan has two distinct major cultures– Arabic-speaking Black Africans and non-Arabic speaking Black Africans–with hundreds of ethnic and tribal divisions and language groups between them, which makes effective collaboration among them a major problem.
“a serious, systemic and most importantly sustained assault on African problems like debt, desertification, lack of water, etc? I can’t think of anything except maybe combatting AIDS.”
I thought the west had spent a lot of money in Africa in e.g. the 70s and on only to conclude that we had to learn to be smarter about what to do. Some would say we need to build public health infrastructure, others would say we need to alter the family structure and/or women’s roles in society, some would say we should topple corrupt govts or impose peace by military measures, others would say X or Y – and no effort summing over all of that would be feasible. And then I suppose the poor in India would wonder what they did to get ignored… Not to say we shouldn’t try to help. Supposedly the Bush admin was sending $15 billion to Africa for development?
“I’m not denying that there is an ethnic component to these atrocities, nor religious, nor pigmentation;”
We seem to be quibbling about wording, so I’ll let you have the last.
rilkefan: “And then I suppose the poor in India would wonder what they did to get ignored…”
Although they have a long way to go, to be sure, and particularly in improving the lives of the rural poor, who are still there in vast numbers (not to mention fighting a Maoist insurgency), India is getting rich fast; much of (not all of) Africa still has vastly more problems.
I guess I am just being unserious, but I’m remembering the Julian Bond and Garrett Morris skit on SNL.
Sorry, didn’t do preview, and didn’t mean to keep it going.
Apparently, the Arabic-speaking portions of Sudan have referred to themselves as “Sons of the counrty”, and the non-Arabic speaking portions as “Blacks”. This may have resulted in the Western media making some generalizations about “Arabs” and “Blacks”.
From the Wikipedia discussion page regarding the conflict article:
ditto, Saddam Hussein was happy to sell us oil.)
Gary, you persist in ignoring that there are reasons for oil companies and governments to want to control how oil is developed, sold, and the proceeds divided in other countries. It’s not about acquiring oil itself.
Are we now back in the business of military interventions for humanitarian reasons? If so, let’s go. Why wait for the UN?
If this is just about bashing the UN, I guess I would point out that the UN can only do what it’s members want to do. They aren’t miracle workers.
In any case, I wasn’t aware that Darfur was a “conservative cause du jour”. When did that happen?
Thanks –
Supposedly the Bush admin was sending $15 billion to Africa for development?
That sounds about right, but on the scale of a continent it’s a pittance. [It also presumes that all the Bush development aid gets there which, given the administration’s track record, is not something I’m sanguine about.] That’s part of the problem: when I said “serious”, I really meant serious, as in “sufficient to actually put a dent in Africa’s problems”. $15 billion, much as it might help my checking account, isn’t going to cut it.
This isn’t a partisan comment, btw; I can’t think of a single administration of the post-WWII era to take African aid seriously. Which is odd, because I’d’ve thought Angola and the like would have been perfect places to fight communism by spreading liberty, democracy and all that good stuff (whiskey, sexy, etc.) but apparently not.
“Gary, you persist in ignoring that there are reasons for oil companies and governments to want to control how oil is developed, sold, and the proceeds divided in other countries. It’s not about acquiring oil itself.”
I’m not at all clear what you mean by this. Once you buy oil, you own it.
What sort of refining oil needs depends on what sort of oil it is; what resources you have to refine it, or sell it to be refined, depends, and the possibilities also depend on where the oil is, transport costs, and so forth. What “the proceeds divided in other countries” means, I have even less idea, I’m afraid.
Feel free to explain what reasons you are referring to, by all means.
russell: “Are we now back in the business of military interventions for humanitarian reasons? If so, let’s go. Why wait for the UN?”
I assume this is some sort of rhetorical question, and that you’re not actually so ignorant as to be genuinely unaware of the various reasons to be cautious, potential serious problems, and difficulties, with a unilateral U.S. intervention.
I would guess that the argument about Arabs versus other Sudanese comes from two facts: (a) the Arab and black Sudanese distinguish themselves from one another as if they were of different ethnicities, and (b) actually, there’s very little difference between them, if you want to get serious about categorizing people on the basis of race. Sort of like the Serbs and Croatians thinking they were very, very different peoples.
About why we don’t do more in Sudan: it’s hard to discuss this without mentioning our desire not to upset either the North/South peace accords or the Sudanese government’s cooperation with us in combatting terrorism.
I would guess that the argument about Arabs versus other Sudanese comes from two facts…
Keeping in mind that Arabness is defined by the language, and Blackness from pigmentation and heritage (well, that how North Americans define it, anyway).
One can be almost any pigment and of any heritage and be Arab. Or creed, as the Mizrahi Jews (or Arab Jews, as they used to be known) show.
This is why I object to the “Arab vs Black” contention in this war. It doesn’t make sense, and it’s making a lot of people think that Middle-Eastern-style Arabs are killing black people. A lot of other people think that it’s a Muslim/non-Muslim thing.
It’s just not fitting well into any of the Western models of culture and conflict.
Pardon my ignorance (and I don’t have any links), but wasn’t/isn’t the leader of Sudan cosy with the WH and its WoT? I remember seeing an article about the president of Sudan, being flown by US govt jet to visit with Dick Cheney. Something to do with osama having lived there or set up training camps, I think. Would this stop any sort of intervention by the US? (thriugh the UN of course)
Anarch–
I agree, although some of my African friends have said to me that they decided the US was a great nation when the Peace Corps started sending people over. The generosity they perceived in it was very impressive to them. (They have not been so impressed with certain more recent events.)
I have always thought, perhaps as part of one of those easily dismissed grand conspiracy theries, that the US intervention in Somalia was one of those difficult problems bequethed by a lame duck administration upon an incoming administration designed to highlight the shortcomings of the new guys.
In the sake of bipartisianship, I will now mention the Clinton adminstration’s lame duck rules on the arsenic levels allowable in drinking water as a counter example.
In the case of Somalia, Bush the Elder gave the incoming adminstration, who might be characturized as a bunch of do-gooders with no foriegn policy experience, a chance to fail that combined feeding the hungry with an intractable foriegn policy problem.
In the case of arsenic, Clinton gave the incoming administration, who might be characturized as a bunch of damn the environment free market rulz guys with the options of increasing regulations, subsidizing public works construction, and so on, versus saying asenic is not really bad for you.
In both cases the outgoing adminisration sought to undermine the incoming administration. Perhaps this is universal. Only in the case of Somalia did it involve American troops in combat.
I am sure that there are amny other examples, and I do not intend my very short list to be complete. I only intend to say that the afforementioned reasons for military interventions may be incomplete, and that sour grapes and partisian politics may are underestimated motivations in past deployments.
etc, this may be small beer compared to the examples you give, but I think the Bush 2 admin was the first to make stuff up about the transition. Remember how all the Clinton staffers supposedly took “looted” Air Force 1 and cut telephone wires, all eagerly reported by Fox News and Tony Snow? An early warning sign, I suppose.
Gary, I’m too tired to find it now, but just yesterday or the day before radish and I both responded to you on this very topic somewhere. Here, probably, but who the hell can keep track?
The short answer is: imperialism. You speak as if it didn’t exist.
The U.S. is interested not only in acquiring the oil (which, as you say, they can buy anywhere), but in making sure that corporations rather than the people in the countries where the oil is extracted have the say on the rate and manner in which it’s taken, which companies get the contracts, who gets how much of the proceeds, and what kinds of long-term agreements are made with other countries.
This country has a long history of overthrowing governments to prevent or reverse nationalization, for instance. As oil becomes scarcer/more expensive and peak oil approaches, there’s a real musical-chairs aspect to the maneuvering of the biggest oil consumers wrt long-term contracts and political relationships with the oil-producing countries.
You can’t just dismiss the idea that oil is a motivation for invasions, occupations, and “regime change” by pointing out that oil is fungible/it’s sold on a world market, etc. Control of the means of production is as important as the acquisition of the product.
Dear Gary:
What oil interests would those be, dmbeaster? Which fields? Which U.S. company?
Others have already mostly deconstructed your retort, but just to clarify. From the context, my remark was purely speculative (notice that “maybe”?) — I don’t know that there are any. And as for “oil interests,” its the generalized interest to be part of the game for future exploration and extraction. Its not necessary to already be present and drilling before you have an interest that influences policy.
My primary point is that it makes no sense to single out other countries for allegedly acting primarily to secure oil interests, and pretend that the US would be free of any such motivation. I am genuinely interested in trying to understand the range of motivations that leads to tolerance of genocide, and I am unwilling to suppose that the US is free of the crass oil motivations that allegedly influence France and China.
“The short answer is: imperialism. You speak as if it didn’t exist.”
Depends what you mean by it; it’s a completely vague term, used by people in many different ways.
“The U.S. is interested not only in acquiring the oil (which, as you say, they can buy anywhere)….”
Sure, but, you know, that’s neither surprising nor inherently evil. Evil things can be done to get it to be sure, and sometimes are and have been and will be, but that also applies to any other substance or material essential to an economy and country. The same can be said of “food.”
“…but in making sure that corporations rather than the people in the countries where the oil is extracted have the say on the rate and manner in which it’s taken, which companies get the contracts, who gets how much of the proceeds, and what kinds of long-term agreements are made with other countries.”
Somewhat, yes.
“This country has a long history of overthrowing governments to prevent or reverse nationalization, for instance.”
At times, yes.
“You can’t just dismiss the idea that oil is a motivation for invasions, occupations, and “regime change” by pointing out that oil is fungible/it’s sold on a world market, etc.”
I can if it’s relevant, and not if it isn’t. You can’t just claim that because oil is part of the motivation for a governmental action, that any and all government actions related to that are therefore necessarily evil, nor that because oil exists somewhere, it therefore is the cause of any and all U.S. governmental action, which must be inherently evil, either.
If it is the case, let’s discuss the specifics, not just throw the word “oil” around and expect me, at least, to therefore shudder and conclude “aha, well, ’nuff said, end of case, whatever it is, it’s in the cause of evil!”
I still totally have no idea what you meant by “how oil is developed, sold, and the proceeds divided in other countries.”
What is “developed oil,” exactly? I literally have no idea what this means. Refined? Found? Extracted? Physically? Economically? As regards its social effects on the country it’s in? I can think of dozens of possible meanings, and I have no idea if any of them is right. If this is shorthand that everyone understands, I’m afraid I’m not one of them.
What’s the significance you have in mind as regards how oil is “sold”?
When you refer to “the proceeds divided in other countries,” are you referring to bribery? Corruption? Oligarchies? Stock sales? State ownership? I can only guess.
And what specifically are you saying about Sudan?
Is there a specific accusation being made? If so, what is it?
“You can’t just dismiss the idea that oil is a motivation for invasions, occupations, and ‘regime change’ by pointing out that oil is fungible/it’s sold on a world market, etc.”
That’s nice, but what’s it got to do specifically with the assertion that “the Bush Admin hasn’t acted more forcefully in Sudan” because of oil? And what’s the evidence? And if there’s no evidence, well, that’s nice, but what’s left to discuss?
“Oil! Booga-booga!” is not an argument.
“Others have already mostly deconstructed your retort, but just to clarify.”
That’s nice. I gather you have no answer to my question.
“Oil! Booga-booga!” seems to be your content.
What is the US policy about this, other than make mild noises and do nothing?
Not much more than any other country, dm, but still, more than any other country. A reasonable person should give the administration credit for calling Darfur a genocide and for pushing UN resolutions in the UNSC, not that we’re not doing enough.
Maybe our oil interests are also a cause of our inaction…
Nope, that’s not it. We don’t have any oil interests in Sudan, at none that I can see. The one factor which may cause our hesitancy is that al Bashir has been reasonably helpful in providing intelligence to us re the WAMI.
My own solution is pretty hawkish (no surprise), but with 2 million having died in southern Sudan because of al-Bahir, why not. Get American troops in there (at least 5,000 and maybe more), as well as other nations willing to stop the genocide, then arm the Darfurs to help them prevent future attacks from the camel-riding, Toyota-driving, Khartoum-financed Janjaweeds. However, the Minni Minawi rebel faction joining the Arabs is a complicating factor.
It’s awful, it’s criminal, it’s chaotic, and it’s cruel, but there isn’t sufficient evidence that the Sudanese government or the militias are attempting to actually exterminate groups of people as opposed to driving them from certain areas in order to deny support to the rebels.
For me, d+u, over 200,000 dead counts as “conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in part“. This doesn’t even consider the physical destruction they caused by creating over 2 million refugees. The deliberacy of these acts looks fairly obvious. I suspect that the UN is hesitant to call it a genocide because, if invoked, they would actually have to do something.
Both sides in the conflict are black in pigmentation.
I don’t believe Arabs consider themselves black Africans, and not only long ago, the Sudanese Arabs ended a squabble against black Africans in south Sudan that cost 2 million lives. Just because’s there’s not much difference in skin color, doesn’t mean there’s no racism.
“Not much more than any other country, dm, but still, more than any other country. A reasonable person should give the administration credit for calling Darfur a genocide and for pushing UN resolutions in the UNSC, not that we’re not doing enough.”
It’s not an either/or, actually.
“Get American troops in there (at least 5,000 and maybe more), as well as other nations willing to stop the genocide, then arm the Darfurs to help them prevent future attacks from the camel-riding, Toyota-driving, Khartoum-financed Janjaweeds”
There are a considerable number of reasons to be hesitant at concluding that this is a solution, let alone the best response.
In no particular order:
1) Our Army is rather busy.
2) We’d be providing Osama bin Laden what he wants, once again; he’s been saying for a few years now that this is what America plans to do, as part of our a) war on Islam; b) desire to Get And Control Oil (where have I heard that before?); we would, indeed, be providing more ammunition for our many enemies in the Islamist world to claim we’re the bad guy imperialist anti-Muslims, regardless that we’d be there to save Muslim lives; it would have, regardless of the facts, deleterious public relations effects, probably more than positive effects.
3) We’d quite possibly wind up in a war with Sudan. While the conventional part of such a war would be relatively negligible, that we would be likely to wind up in a situation similar to that of Iraq, or that of Somali writ large — in other words, a possibly unwinnable counter-insurgency, certainly possibly a massive, dare I say it, “quagmire” that might be even more difficult to extract ourselves from than Iraq.
4) We’d likely end up killing countless people, and having to keep killing countless people, as part of 3, thus playing into 2.
5) We’d end up being responsible for the Fur and refugees, which would be a massive humanitarian problem, in the midst of a likely war; and people have a way of being less than purely grateful, and a way of starting to resent those in charge, when conditions aren’t great, no matter how pure the motivations of the folks who are responsible and in charge (us).
6) It’s unclear there wouldn’t be other problems this would cause with our international relations.
7) There are probably other problematic aspects not occurring to me at the moment.
This is not to say that we should do nothing, nor that we shouldn’t necessarily support a program that includes some form of military action, or threat of it. But it is to say that we shouldn’t simply think that because we have good intentions, that means we’ll have good results.
I think that Iraq, if nothing else, should teach a lesson of thinking long and hard, and considering all the possible bad results that might occur, before plunging into a major military intervention and foreign undertaking/occupation, if the lesson hadn’t been clear before that.
Whatever the best response is, I’m quite sure that it will require many facets, and isn’t adequately even summarized in a single line that reminds me of what is nonetheless one of my favorite movies, but not as a model for American foreign policy, which is The Wind And The Lion, and you remind me of it, and the brash young American officer who when asked what he proposes, eagerly puts forth: “Military intervention!”
I believe military intervention still has a place in the policy toolbox, but I’m more than a little hesitant to assume it’s the best idea, or even necessarily remotely much of a good idea. It tends to involve, after all, a lot of killing and death and suffering and responsibility, on its own, let alone that the law of unintended consequences always follows right behind it.
Part of which is to say that it seems to me that offering American logistic and economic and other forms of support for the troops of other countries, as well as other forms of support and aid and diplomatic pressure, is probably a better idea than sending American troops themselves into Sudan, particularly into an unclear, open-ended, commitment where we undertake primary military responsibility, I suspect.
Re Gary Farber’s 6:19 post:
It is important to distinguish between public rationales, popular reasons, and notions about going to war that we would like to believe versus state interests (economic, political, etc.) and the interests of those who stand to benefit from the promulgation of war, military expenditures, or the enforcement of “stability” on behalf of the smooth operation of the international free market (and faith in and power of the dollar). Because the application of force in Somalia was presented by the Clinton administration as an exercise in altruism does not mean that it was. The titles of military operations, in this case “Operation Restore Hope,” are decided upon for purposes of public relations, not because they represent reality (note how the GWoT has morphed into the WAMI).
Somalia, 1992. The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc have come undone. How do you justify the size, cost, and use of the US military (one of the pillars of the US economy since WWII, the evolution since the mid 1930s of an official policy toward a consumer economy being the other) after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Military Industrial Complex is essential to the way we have structured our economy, but what use now does Europe, for example, have for the US military without the supposed threat of invasion from the Soviet Union? What is the meaning and value of the international application of US force in light of the collapse of the primary opponent of the Free World? How do you maintain the international and domestic power and value of a US dollar no longer pegged to the Gold Exchange Standard and in the wake of oil crises in an economy that is built upon a permanent wartime footing after the USSR is no more?
My suggestion is that you attempt to demonstrate the continued viability and applicability of the US military in a “best-case” situation where there is a clearly evil enemy (Aidid), where US casualties can be kept low while at the same time demonstrably asserting American military superiority, and where negotiation or “appeasement” is out of the question (Aidid must be arrested and his clan disarmed – remember when it was President Clinton advising against cutting and running?). It is paramount to US interests, both domestically and abroad, following the death of our erstwhile nemesis that the US military maintain its status quo as an economic institution and as the biggest and most well-used international tool at or disposal. Hence, intervention in Somalia. (Think, “New World Order” and the post-Soviet policy shift to “regional challenges and opportunities” aimed at “humanitarian assistance and nation-building efforts” that are “the inescapable responsibility of the world’s only superpower” – RAND’s James Dobbins.)
I do not suggest that this is in any way a complete answer to why the US went into Somalia, but I suspect it is a large part of it.
Gary Farber, my assertion that “Nations do not go to war or dispatch armed forces for altruistic reasons” is a “considerable over-statement” while your contention that Somalia was an exercise in selfless humanitarianism is not? Seriously?
“…while your contention that Somalia was an exercise in selfless humanitarianism is not?”
I didn’t say that, and I’m certainly not going to defend words you’re sticking in my mouth, thanks.
“The titles of military operations, in this case ‘Operation Restore Hope,’ are decided upon for purposes of public relations….”
As I’ve discussed here before, I prefer the days when they were random code words, adhering to Churchill’s guidelines. The Reaganesque incarnation of PR choices is more than a little stomach-roiling.
“I do not suggest that this is in any way a complete answer to why the US went into Somalia, but I suspect it is a large part of it.”
The fact that starving kids were on tv had something to do with it, too. Neither was opposing or doing anything about Aidid any part of the original mission, so I think it’s difficult to defend the claim that “where there is a clearly evil enemy (Aidid)” was part of it.
Neither does throwing a relatively tiny, light, force into Somalia go very far to justify “the size, cost, and use of the US military.”
Since it didn’t, and couldn’t possibly, that makes little to no sense — especially since we’d just gone through the Gulf War, which I think did about fifty thousand times more to publically justify the Army, in their view, than Somalia, though if you want me to agree that the Army, like any institution, looks for reasons to justify itself, well, sure, duh. Seems too obvious to be necessary to point out, but, hey, sure.
But that the Army needed to go into Somalia with a tiny, light, force, to justify its existence after the Gulf War, and that was the primary reason? Pull my other one.
“How do you maintain the international and domestic power and value of a US dollar no longer pegged to the Gold Exchange Standard and in the wake of oil crises in an economy that is built upon a permanent wartime footing after the USSR is no more?”
Perhaps you can expand upon your explanation of how the Somalia operation did this, because I have to say that I’m at a complete loss to see it, at first glance.
In short: “I do not suggest that this is in any way a complete answer to why the US went into Somalia, but I suspect it is a large part of it.”
Whereas to me it looks like an incoherent stretch, to fill an ideological presumption.
The Army’s official version is that:
I don’t think that’s far off the mark. Was their a PR component? You betcha. Americans saw starving kids on their tvs, night after night, week after week.
That’s bad, politically.
And internationally, Bush had proclaimed the “New World Order” and all that; was making America look good part of it? You betcha.
That’s sufficient, and I’m a fan of Ockham.
But if your argument is that things have multiple effects and supporting causes, hey, I’m with you; not exactly a revelation, though.
How it “maintain[ed] the international and domestic power and value of a US dollar no longer pegged to the Gold Exchange Standard,” on the other hand, beats the hell out of me, but do explain.
Gary –
Yes, it was a rhetorical question. In fact, it was not only rhetorical but sarcastic. Bad form, perhaps, my apologies if so. Charles’ post was, in fact, a good one, and probably deserves a more thoughtful, and less dismissive, comment.
Darfur is a mess, and a tragic one. I don’t think there’s much the US could do about it right now, even if we wanted to. Our dance card is more than full. Even if it were not, committing US troops to Darfur under our own flag might not be something we want to take on.
The UN does, in fact, appear to be sitting on its hands in a situation not exactly like, but not unlike, that in Rwanda. I’m not sure when something crosses the legal line from mere organized mass murder to genocide, thus legitimizing UN military intervention, but Darfur is at least the former.
What is curious to me in Charles’ post is his characterization of Darfur as the “conservative cause du jour”. In as much as that is true, I think it’s due to the opportunity offered to bash the UN. Those bureaucrats in Turtle Bay are, once again, proving themselves ineffectual.
I guess one question I have on that point is this: what can be expected of the UN? My understanding of the UN is that it is intended to provide a venue for nations to sort out their conflicts without going to war. I don’t think it’s intended to be a trans- or supra-national cop or police force, ready to ride into the breach to prevent bad behavior whenever it rears its ugly head.
I think the UN can only do what its members are willing to do, and agree to do. The legal constraints on its authority define what it *cannot* do, but cannot compel it *to* do things that the member states can’t agree to support.
So, I agree with the conservative complaint that the UN, in this and other cases, is not effective in addressing serious problems. I’m not sure that undermines the value or importance of an institution like the UN. They are, in fact, not the only folks who could, potentially, intervene, but who are sitting on the sidelines wringing their hands.
The alternative to the UN is not a more effective venue for resolving international conflict through peaceful means, but none.
Thanks –
Cheney had a former fondness for Iran?
yes, in that he pushed to get sanctions against Iran lifted, when he was CEO of Halliburton.
Charles,
Get American troops in there (at least 5,000 and maybe more)…
Careful! Somebody’s gonna call you a chickenhawk before this thread is over.
Russell, I think the whole “conservative cause du jour” remark is Charles’ tongue-in-cheek response to some commenters’ complaints about his recent posts on ObWi.
This particular post is quite subdued and non-bashy, in my opinion. Charles points out his concerns with the UNSC resolution on Darfur, without taking gratuitous shots at “bureaucrats in Turtle Bay”, etc.
My own opinions on Darfur are probably more controversial than Charles’. I think we should act based solely on a careful determination of America’s interests in Sudan. To the extent that the al Bashir government is providing us useful intelligence in the WOT, and refraining from supporting terrorist actions against the US, I think we should in turn refrain from providing military support for the Darfur rebels. In fact, we can (and probably do) use the implied threat of that support to keep al Bashir in line.
That does not mean we shouldn’t provide humanitarian aid to the refugees, nor does it mean we should totally ignore the genocide. But whatever we do to deter the genocide should not impinge on our own security interests.
How’s that for cold-hearted conservatism?
“Bill Clinton” provided a pretty fair explanation of the military mission in Somalia here (still bummed about Phil Hartman). From what I saw, our problem there was mission creep, moving from strictly humanitarian aid to military incursions, ultimately to Black Hawk Down.
What is curious to me in Charles’ post is his characterization of Darfur as the “conservative cause du jour”.
I was being sarcastic, Russell, and let some pissed offedness carry over from another thread.
Gary, yes I favor troops but I don’t think an American-led force is realistic. al Bashir continues to get away with this because the rest of the world either can’t or won’t use leverage against him, i.e., the threat or the actual acts of sanctions or military force.
Charles:
Get American troops in there (at least 5,000 and maybe more), as well as other nations willing to stop the genocide, then arm the Darfurs to help them prevent future attacks from the camel-riding, Toyota-driving, Khartoum-financed Janjaweeds.
Toyota-driving? You may be confused, this is a tactic of the rebels. Here’s a photo of the SLA in a Toyota, and here’s a description of the original attack on Sudanese government forces that began the current civil war:
The Janjaweed may employ the same tactic, but then why label them “Toyota-driving” as a pejorative if both sides do it?
And I believe both sides have equal access to camels, so I have no idea what you’re getting at there. This may have been a Blito moment, and you were on a roll, but ????
Also, while the urge to intervene in the manner is laudable, and almost impossible to avoid, consider what would happen to US prestige and the future of humanitarian intervention should the Muslim government and the Muslim rebels unite in fighting the invading crusaders. And this, from all accounts, would be a likely scenario.
I don’t believe Arabs consider themselves black Africans, and not only long ago, the Sudanese Arabs ended a squabble against black Africans in south Sudan that cost 2 million lives. Just because’s there’s not much difference in skin color, doesn’t mean there’s no racism.
I urge you to re-examine my comments and look for where I said there was no racism involved. What I did say was that posing these as Arab vs Black atrocities misleads western readers who may be unfamiliar with the ethnic makeup in the Sudan, as well as being generally incorrect.
Careful! Somebody’s gonna call you a chickenhawk before this thread is over.
And Stan, seeing no one wanting a cruxification, gets a stepladder and nails himself to a cross.
Attaboy Stan. Look everyone, the liberals call people chickenhawks!
double,
I don’t think you have any business discussing military intervention in Sudan unless you are going to send your kids there.
moving from strictly humanitarian aid to military incursions, ultimately to Black Hawk Down
From what I’ve read about the BHD incident, it came about as a result of a military incursion. What’s remarkable about that is that as far as I can tell, who planned and authorized the incursion in question is still not in the public domain, despite the BHD drama.
I could be wrong about that, though, and would happy to be corrected.
“I don’t think you have any business discussing military intervention in Sudan unless you are going to send your kids there.”
Attaboy, Stan. You predicted someone would soon use the chickenhawk meme, and sure enough it happened. Of course, you had to do it yourself, but what does that matter?
Of course, you had to do it yourself, but what does that matter?
Hey, man. I call them as I see them. 🙂
Damn chickenhawks everywhere 🙁
First Iraq, now Darfur.
I don’t think you have any business discussing military intervention in Sudan unless you are going to send your kids there.
I see that Stan has mistaken me for someone who uses the chickenhawk term. Interesting that when a discussion of merit is going full steam, Stan starts yelling about chickenhawks.
What’s the matter, Stan? Unable to participate in a reasonable discussion? Or are not enough people paying attention to you?
Jake: fair point. I didn’t want to imply that the US was sending no aid at all (pace rilkefan) — or that the aid was unwanted — just that it was sending an “unserious” [horrible word] amount given the scope of the problems.
Or are not enough people paying attention to you?
Eh? I made a single comment on “chickenhawks”, hardly attention grabbing.
As for Darfur, more proof that the so called “world opinion” and “global test” is worthless. Nobody is willing to do anything about anything but criticize us. So let’s agree that we should do what’s right and never again bring the “world opinion” into these threads.
The Janjaweed may employ the same tactic, but then why label them “Toyota-driving” as a pejorative if both sides do it?
It’s not so much that Janjaweeds have Toyotas, d+u, it’s what they do with them, a means to commit genocide. Genocide is not being committed against Arabs. I was thinking of this article when I wrote “Toyota-driving”:
Oh, what a feeling!
What I did say was that posing these as Arab vs Black atrocities misleads western readers who may be unfamiliar with the ethnic makeup in the Sudan.
Arab-on-black mass murder is exactly what’s taking place. I don’t see how you can get around that. I’m glad that we agree that there is a racist component to this, and in that regard I’m not sure what your argument is here. There are two ethnic groups that are pitted in Sudan, one described as Arab (self-described actually) and the other as black African (which is a matter of basic ancestry). I know I’m bringing Godwin into this, but Jews didn’t have much different skin color from the Germans who slaughtered them, so I’m not sure what pigmentation has to do with anything.
…and in that regard I’m not sure what your argument is here.
I’ll simplify. The victims are black. The murderers are black. Saying “Arab vs Black” implies that some are black and some are not as far as our own conceptions of those terms goes. And in some cases, the victims are black Arabs as well.
I’m not sure why there is this insistance on the Arab/Black thing, it’s as weird as if the Rwandan genocide was called “Hutu vs Black”.
…but Jews didn’t have much different skin color from the Germans who slaughtered them, so I’m not sure what pigmentation has to do with anything.
Then why do you describe the conflict in pigmentation-based terms? If anything, it is largely Arab vs non-Arab, but even that doesn’t describe the situation fully. As the demographic data that Spartikus quoted earlier says, there are hundreds of ethnic and language differences at play that make it difficult to break it down into the nice two-sided conflict model that Westerners are comfortable with, and accounts for some of the confusion when the rebels commit atrocities, or when a rebel groups suddenly starts fighting on the government side.
Gary: You can’t just claim that because oil is part of the motivation for a governmental action, that any and all government actions related to that are therefore necessarily evil, nor that because oil exists somewhere, it therefore is the cause of any and all U.S. governmental action, which must be inherently evil, either.
I made no such claim; nor did I ever claim that the U.S. policy re Sudan was primarily or even at all influenced by oil. I was responding specifically to the way in which you dismiss oil as a motivation for intervention in general by seeming to assume that the only connection oil might have to intervention is acquisition of the oil itself.
You made this same point with respect to the Iraq invasion/occupation in a recent thread at Unqualified Offerings, and radish and I responded with examples of other ways in which oil in a target country can provide a motive for intervention.
I appreciate your and Charles keeping Darfur in front of us, and I very much agree with your post at 2:12 above.
I made a single comment on “chickenhawks”, hardly attention grabbing.
You made three snarky comments about chickenhawks, here, here, and here. And this without even anyone even hinting that they were going to use that argument. Not even a whiff.
As for Darfur, …
Don’t even bother. Your behavior above indicates that you are a simple griefer who prefers sabotaging discussion for attention rather than participating in it. I have no interest in what you think on the situation.
But then, nobody refers to the Holocaust as white-on-Jew mass murder, and it would be unnecessarily confusing if they did. The problem is that the Sudanese Arabs are culturally Arab, not ethnically Arab. Ethnically I think they are mostly Nubians. Using the Arab-on-black construction implies that Arab and black are equivalent terms, rather than a description of culture on the one hand and race on the other.
I’m not sure why there is this insistance on the Arab/Black thing, it’s as weird as if the Rwandan genocide was called “Hutu vs Black”.
Weird in a familiar way, though.
double,
You made three snarky comments about chickenhawks, here, here, and here.
The other 2 were in response to replies regarding “chickenhawks”.
Your behavior above indicates that you are a simple griefer who prefers sabotaging discussion
Yea, man, whatever. The subject of “our oil interests”/Bush administration has already been mentioned at the top of this thread. Just following the usual path, that’s all.
But then, nobody refers to the Holocaust as white-on-Jew mass murder, and it would be unnecessarily confusing if they did.
Or even more confusingly, German-on-White mass murder.
Weird in a familiar way, though.
Yeah, that episode occurred to me yesterday.
The only thing more tragic than the chickenhawk argument is the number of pixels wasted in asserting it/disputing it/randomly bringing it up. Can we just let it go, please?
Already done, Slarti
Disgusting.
Deterring genocide is an American interest.
Cold-heartedly and practically, who would want to ally with a nation that would be indifferent to genocide committed against one’s people, and even worse, not just indifferent, but so evil as to be willing to colloborate with genocide for the sake of calculation and perceived self-interest.
To colloborate with genocide and endorse it would be no less evil than any of the many nations that colloborated with the Nazi genocide.
If that were America, not only would I wish to not be an American, but I would chose to fight against any such government and overthrow its evil, just as I would hope anyone would fight against Nazism or any regime that colloborated with genocide.
Genocide is genocide is genocide. Genocide against one people is no less evil than genocide against any other people.
Willingness to colloborate with one genocide is no different from willingness to colloborate with another genocide.
To put it into personal terms for me, willingness to colloborate with genocide against the Fur, and the extermination of the Fur, is no different from willingness to colloborate with genocide against the Jews, and the extermination of the Jews.
All the happy talk about being against anti-Semitism disappears in the face of such evil.
This isn’t “cold-hearted conservatism.” It’s Nazism.
Deterring genocide is an American interest.
Sure, in so much as it is also in the interest of those in liberal democracies, but I would argue that it is in human interest. The sad bit being that committing genocide also seems to be hard-wired into us, in that when groups of humans compete, the ones that wipe out the others benefit. This seems to be an evolutionary trait.
But we’re at a point where this needs to be stopped. Despite the disaster in Rwanda, the nineties were beginning to look as if we were headed a time where humanitarian intervention would be a formal process. Now, well, we’ve gone back a number of decades.
I have hopes that The Responsibility to Protect initiative at the UN will make some progress, but I think we’ve got a way to go.
Now, how come there isn’t much talk of intevention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Slart: “From what I’ve read about the BHD incident, it came about as a result of a military incursion. What’s remarkable about that is that as far as I can tell, who planned and authorized the incursion in question is still not in the public domain, despite the BHD drama.”
I can’t tell what this means. What do you mean by “military incursion” in this context?
StanLS: “Eh? I made a single comment on “chickenhawks”, hardly attention grabbing.”
September 08, 2006 at 09:33 AM
September 08, 2006 at 10:46 AM
September 08, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Apparently you have a problem counting to three.
“Nobody is willing to do anything about anything but criticize us.”
I’m fairly sure the world is quite busy doing other things.
Charles: “I’m glad that we agree that there is a racist component to this, and in that regard I’m not sure what your argument is here.”
Perhaps you should reread d-p-u’s comments, then.
“…so I’m not sure what pigmentation has to do with anything.”
Then why are you bringing it up and insisting on its relevance?
Nell, I’d actually missed those responses at Jim’s, so thanks muchly for bringing them to my attention. I better understand what you meant, although I persist in seeing other reasons as having been primary reasons for the Iraq invasion, and in seeing oil as what Bruce Baugh phrased as “one more ‘nice if you can get it’ bennie.”
StanLS: “The other 2 were in response to replies regarding ‘chickenhawks’.”
Which adds up to “3.” HTH.
Gary,
StanLS: “The other 2 were in response to replies regarding ‘chickenhawks’.”
Which adds up to “3.” HTH.
Well, in that case lets keep track of chickenhawk related comments by others.
So my 4 (including this one) vs. 6 made by others:
September 08, 2006 at 10:33 AM
September 08, 2006 at 11:49 AM
September 08, 2006 at 12:32 PM
September 08, 2006 at 01:17 PM
September 08, 2006 at 01:28 PM
September 08, 2006 at 01:51 PM
I don’t regard ThirdGorchBro’s “cold-hearted conservatism” as Nazism, and think that characterizing it as such is over the top. It’s cold realism, which has often driven U.S. government policy (“no friends, only interests”).
I also believe that, as Max Sawicky has posted many times and more effectively than I can, the question of feasibility is often ignored or drowned out when people are making arguments for humanitarian intervention.
This is a separate issue from basing decisions purely on interests. There is one similarity, though: addressing the feasibility question demands a very hard-nosed, dispassionate, and frank look at capabilities and likely consequences.
I can’t tell what this means. What do you mean by “military incursion” in this context?
The Abdi House raid, is what I meant. I could be mistaken, but I think that’s a good chunk of why there was such a large, angry mob. Not an incursion, so referring to it as such was an error.
Thanks for keeping Sudan on our radars Charles.
Regarding oil and the Sudan, this may of some relevance. Or not.
In the late nineties, a Canadian oil company, Talisman Energy, was involved in the Sudanese oil industry, and was charged with profiting from atrocities and genocide. It has since divested.
“I don’t regard ThirdGorchBro’s ‘cold-hearted conservatism’ as Nazism, and think that characterizing it as such is over the top.”
I’m fussy about people who colloborate with genocide, or advocate it.
But I’ll settle for “moral equivalent of Nazis.”
“Colloborators with genocide” seems sufficient to me, and I would happily see such people tried and convicted of the crime of colloborating with committers of genocide and, if warranted, conspiracy to commit genocide. (Note that advocacy alone is a matter of free speech, of course, and not a crime. Such people should merely be shunned.)
Trials for anyone involved in a conspiracy to commit genocide would be mandated by our treaty obligations.
Of course no one can be guilty of collaborating with genocide in the Sudan because according to the UN it isn’t a genocide. World government at its best.
Of course no one can be guilty of collaborating with genocide in the Sudan because according to the UN it isn’t a genocide.
i share your frustration.
but, OT: there are plenty of examples of our own govt working hard to avoid using common-sense and obvious definitions of objects and events when because doing so would require action that they just don’t want to take.
it’s torture for those of us who dislike legalistic parsing.
Of course no one can be guilty of collaborating with genocide in the Sudan because according to the UN it isn’t a genocide.
According to an investigation into the matter by the UN, which found atrocities and war crimes in abundance, but no premeditated attempt to exterminate a people.
Forcing people from an area in order to deprive insurgents of support can certainly be called both a war crime and an atrocity, but how is this substantially different from what the US did at Fallujah (other than the fact that US forces are far more disciplined and less likely to commit atrocities than untrained militias)?
And assuming that the investigation found no genocide in order that the UN would not have to do anything seems overly paranoid. The UN and Kofi Annan seem to be doing everything in their power in order to get SC action in the region.
double,
Forcing people from an area in order to deprive insurgents of support can certainly be called both a war crime and an atrocity, but how is this substantially different from what the US did at Fallujah
Uh. Didn’t we let those civilians come back to Fallujah after the operation was over?
Gary Farber,
How did I know what your first response to my last question would be. I thought of putting something in that post but instead decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, yes, you did not use the phrase “selfless humanitarianism,” but something akin to that was implied by your first paragraph (6:19) and again by your agreement with the official Army version of Somalia which posits humanitarian relief as the casus belli. Is it or is it not your contention to come down on the side of altruism in regard to Somalia? If it is, then my question still stands.
In re the economic issues, you may wish to check out the changes in the Euro-American economy over the last generation and the shift toward a hegemonic tack by the US underpinned by the power of the dollar.
I find the official Army version of events in Somalia to be quite wide of the mark and until I see more credible information to support this version, I will stick with my ideological presumption that the cause of intervention in Somalia was far from altruistic.
The Army succeeded where private and volunteer relief organizations failed? Right. Check out the efforts of the ICRC or UNICEF, for example, prior to the US intervention.
Yes indeed, the whole thing started when President Bush and the rest of America saw pictures of starving children on television. A great thumbnail sketch here is Jim Naureckas’ article “Media in the Somalia Intervention: Tragedy Made Simple.”
All,
One of the leading experts on Darfur is Alex de Waal who is at Harvard in the Department of Government and a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative as well as being the director of Justice Africa. He was an associate director for Africa Watch but resigned in 1992 over the organization’s support for the deployment of US troops. He had a great article in the 5 Aug 2004 issue of the London Review of Books called “The Road to Darfur.” You may also like to check out a collection of his articles at Sudanwatch (http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/disarming-janjaweed-and-armed-militia.html).
“…but how is this substantially different from what the US did at Fallujah…?”
Scale, and the scale of assault upon civilians, and the intent to kill people for who they are, not what they’re doing, all of which is what differentiates genocide from mass murder.
Have you read any of Samantha Powers’ work?
Have you read any of Samantha Powers’ work?
Googled her yesterday on your recommendation, but that’s all so far.
Just to be clear, I know there is sheer horror being perpetuated in Darfur. I’ve seen photos, I’ve read accounts. But the term “genocide” implies an ongoing and systemic attempt to eradicate a people, and from accounts I’ve read, the intent is to drive them from the land in order to undermine the rebel insurgency, and there is no evidence that the Sudanese leadership intends on wiping out certain ethnic groups.
Members of the Janjaweed may be attempting genocide, and they are certainly guilty of vast crimes against humanity (as are some of the rebel forces), but that doesn’t make this genocide, at least from a technical standpoint.
The many victims of the extreme violence are probably unconcerned with the technical quibbles over the fine points of the terminology.
But I ranckle at assertions that an investigation into the crisis predetermined the findings in order that the UN could avoid doing something when it’s the UN that is trying to get something done.
The question remains – what is to be done? Last May, certain members of rebel groups balked at signing peace accords because they felt they would get a better deal should there be foreign intervention, and that has likely lead to further conflict. Should intervention take place, it’s likely to be a really messy situation (think Somalia), and I doubt it would be much more effective than the current AU force.
Myself, I’m at a loss. I’m disappointed the the newly elected Conservative Canadian PM has declined Canadian troops, even though the military says we have enough to provide some peacekeeping efforts. I’d like to know that there were enough other nations to provide either forces or resources, but even if they could, I’m not certain what they could do.
I’m fussy about people who collaborate with genocide, or advocate it.
Do you see no difference between actively aiding in genocide and simply taking no steps to end it? Are you saying that the US should always do whatever possible to end genocide wherever it occurs, regardless of any other circumstances or potential negative consequences of such action?
I shouldn’t have waited so long to check back on this thread. Gary, your 1:34 PM post is a pretty harsh judgment, but I hope you’ll hear me out on a couple of clarifications and responses to the points you made.
First, to rephrase kenb’s 5:51 PM post above, there is a difference between collaborating with genocide and not actively attempting to end it.
You say, “If that were America, not only would I wish to not be an American, but I would chose to fight against any such government and overthrow its evil.” But the American government has done business with more than one murderous regime throughout its history, not out of empathy for the regime itself but to achieve our own interests. Not only America – every country in the world fails to live up to your standard here. And not just in Darfur, or even just in Africa. You are probably better informed than I am about the massacres that took place not too many years ago in Chiapas – that’s a lot closer than Darfur or Rwanda or Congo, why didn’t we intervene against the Mexican government?
Which brings me to the next issue, as mentioned by Nell in her 2:00 PM post: feasibility. How do we prevent every genocide or near-genocide in the world? Especially when the rest of the major powers are unwilling to send troops and money, or even actively opposing intervention? And what happens when the interventions go sour on us, like Somalia did?
Finally, I would like to clarify that my post was about what I think the policy of our government should be, not what my own personal feelings are. I despise the Sudanese regime, for their attempts at ethnic cleansing in Darfur and in the south, and for their Islamism and their past collaborations with al’Qaeda. But I expect my government to act in the interests of the United States, first and foremost.
Which brings me to my last point. You stated that deterring genocide is an American interest, and I agree with you. Peace, in general, is in our interests. Teddy Roosevelt is my model Republican president, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. I hate the militarism and pie-in-the-sky adventurism of the Bush administration. But one thing the Iraq War should have demonstrated by now is that our armed forces are not institutionally designed for low-intensity warfare. How many Arab Sudanese would we kill in order to stop the killing of the Fur? There are other things we can do, and are doing, in the UN and (hopefully) in direct talks with the Sudanese government to deter genocide.
You may say I am morally equivalent to a Nazi if you wish. I do not deny that in the world of international politics, my preferred models are Talleyrand and Bismarck and Disraeli and Kissinger and Nixon. Many people have called Kissinger and Nixon Nazis, and no doubt they had bloody hands. But ask yourself this: given a choice between Kissinger’s disciples, such as Brent Scowcroft, and the neocons in the Bush administration, who would you rather have in charge of our foreign policy?
I just re-read my last paragraph, and man does it sound pompous. I don’t mean to place myself in such august company as those statemen. By “preferred models” I meant the kind of people I would like to see in charge of US foreign policy, that’s all. I’m just some dude.
“Are you saying that the US should always do whatever possible to end genocide wherever it occurs, regardless of any other circumstances or potential negative consequences of such action?”
Not me. The Convention On Genocide.
FirstGorch: “there is a difference between collaborating with genocide and not actively attempting to end it.”
Nope, there isn’t. It’s a crime to not undertake to prvent it, and we’re obligated by law to punish it.
If you’d like to campaign to have us withdraw from the Convention On Genocide, you’re free to do so, of course.
The Convention was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948, signed by the United States November 12, 1948, and ratified by the United States on November 23, 1988, by the way.
Gary: please check up the definition of “complicity” before writing: It’s a crime to not undertake to prvent it
Also, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:
And U.S. Code; Chapter 50A; Section § 1091. Genocide:
If “complicity in genocide” means not attempting to prevent any nation from committing any of the acts descibed in Article 2, then every US President since (and including) Truman should have been imprisoned. And we should be at war with China for its actions in Tibet. Not to mention probably a good third of the rest of the world, as well.
“If “complicity in genocide” means not attempting to prevent any nation from committing any of the acts descibed in Article 2, then every US President since (and including) Truman should have been imprisoned.”
Possibly you missed my 7:49 p.m.:
Actually, I did see that, but I thought 1988 was a typo. Okay, so just Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes in the slammer then.
As an aside, I’d just like to say that I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, and Amygdala is one of the few blogs that I make an effort to check several times a week. I hope my position on Darfur hasn’t put you completely off me.
Not me. The Convention On Genocide.
Thanks, I confess that this is new information for me. So we’re bound by treaty to “undertake to prevent and to punish” genocide. This helps me better understand the hesitation among world leaders to apply the label “genocide”.
However, you did still overstate the case — while failing to “undertake to prevent and to punish” genocide breaks our treaty obligations per article 1, it’s not the same thing as complicity in genocide.
And I suppose there’s a good bit of wiggle room in what exactly it means to “undertake” to prevent/punish it — that falls short of, say, “doing everything possible” to prevent/punish it. …[googling…] just found this article which includes the following:
But strictly speaking, I see that we can’t purposefully and straightforwardly ignore it.
I think the US has been much more complicit in genocide in past actions than it would be if it followed TGB’s recommendations on Sudan. Not that I’m defending TGB’s recommendation–I think it’s wrong (but don’t know what we should be doing).
But Reagan embraced Rios Montt in Guatemala (pre-1988, of course) and every American President from Ford to Clinton was complicit in Indonesia’s arguably genocidal occupation of East Timor.
Try them all–I’m up for that. (Even though I really like Carter.) Reagan is beyond our reach, but we could go after the appropriate underlings. Kissinger should be an easy target to start with. I presume there’s some law somewhere that would apply to supporting genocide even before 1988.
There are also various examples of American complicity in mass murder over the decades. I’ve never been able to understand the moral distinction between mass murder and genocide. Guatemala’s tens of thousands of murders in the early 80’s were “genocidal”, while El Salvador’s tens of thousands of civilian murders were not. It seems obscene to argue that one was worse than the other (except possibly in a quantitative sense). So whether Darfur is called mass murder or genocide is unimportant , except for the fact that there’s a legal obligation to do something if it is called “genocide”.
OK, I stand corrected. Sudanese Arabs are of Nubian and Kushite ancestry which looks to be mostly native African. I may be stubborn at times on opinions but try to be less so on the facts.
Kissinger was, of course, Ford’s and NIxon’s underling, not Reagan’s. The Reagan people tended to snub him, if I recall correctly. I was thinking of underlings in general as high-ranking American subjects for a war crimes trial.
“Kissinger was, of course, Ford’s and NIxon’s underling, not Reagan’s. The Reagan people tended to snub him, if I recall correctly.”
Well, yes. He was a commie-appeasing softie who lost Vietnam, sold out Taiwan, made deals with the evil Red Chinese, and not only talked to the Soviet Union, but undermined our defense by making arms treaties with them that left us practically defenseless, with fewer than several thousand nuclear weapons, after all!
Fortunately, stout people like the Committee On The Present Danger recognized this!
Of course, Nixon himself was a famous liberal, both domestically and in supporting detente and failing to win the Vietnam War, as everyone knows. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan came along that, well, of course, he was practically a liberal, too, what with his agreeing to tax increases, failing to live up to his promises to eliminate government departments, and selling out the nation by negotiating with Gorbachev and not recognizing that perestroika was a commie trick! (Just as the so-called Sino-Soviet split was! It’s all a trick! They’re all still commies, I tell you!)
George W. Bush is the only true conservative ever elected President, although he’s actually turned out to be a liberal, too, what with making us fight the ragheads with one hand tied behind our back, and failing to nuke Iraq into glass in order to make it democratic and peaceful!
I put all my faith in George Allen!; he’s the only real Amurrican who can save us, but only if he runs with co-President Pat Buchanan! We must build a mile-high fence around all of our borders to protect us from the dark-skinned hordes! And we must have laws mandating pledging allegiance to Jesus in our schools every morning! And we must nuke the entire dark-skinned parts of the planet from orbit! It’s the only way to be sure!!!
Just to be clear.
Gary- I usually don’t like your posts, but that one kicked @ss! Very cool.