The Daily Background

Darfur. And no, not the Darfur in Minnesota, either.

Earlier today, I wrote posts explaining the situation in Darfur, and explaining the historical context of the Darfur tragedy, which is very important. I promised in both of them that I’d be writing a post looking at the White House’s response to the genocide. This is that post.

Recently New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof invited his readers to pledge money to send conservative FOX “news” anchor Bill O’Reilly to Darfur, so he could cover the situation himself. Fairly quickly, Kristof’s readers pledged more than $700,000 for the trip, which O’Reilly has refused to take.

Meanwhile, reaction to Darfur in the White House, things have been mixed over the past three years. What has remained constant however, is that the Administration’s response has remained inappropriate throughout. From the very beginning. In an earlier post, I wrote:

The ethnic cleansing began in early 2003, at a time when most countries (and their respective print and television journalists) were more focused upon what was about to play out in Iraq, shortly afterwards.

At a time, when Sudan was visibly entering a dramatic conflict, which has resulted in the loss of up to 300,000 lives (according to British Parliament), American troops and resources were too busy being used in an illegal war which was started under false pretenses, to intervene in this massive humanitarian tragedy.

I believe that it is incumbent upon the the world’s richest and most powerful, to intervene in situations like this. In my mind, mass hunger is the greatest violence inflicted. And when large-scale manmade violence, genocide, is combined with hunger, the world sees travesties– such as the history books record in Rwanda in ‘94, or Germany in the ’40s. Human history is littered with examples.

In July of 2004, the United States House of Representatives declared that what was going on in Darfur was (as was obvious to anyone observing) genocide. Consequently, they demanded by unanimous vote that the Administration take action to stop the mass killings, and provide aid to refugees.

Two months later, Secretary of State Colin Powell agreed, and declared it genocide.

And then nothing happened.

The United Nations said it would consider sanctions. A token handful of non-U.S. troops were sent in from African nations who could afford to deploy them. There were talks of a ceasefire, but nobody ceased firing.

During the 2004 Presidential debates, Democratic candidate John Kerry said that American troops were too “overextended,” in places like Iraq. The President mumbled something about using African Union troops to stop what he agreed was genocide.

And then nothing happened.

The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed rebels raided refugee camps while talking about talks. The White House has refused to support UN efforts to put Sudanese war criminals on court.

In late April of 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported the following:

The Bush administration has forged a close intelligence partnership with the Islamic regime that once welcomed Osama bin Laden here, even though Sudan continues to come under harsh U.S. and international criticism for human rights violations. The Sudanese government, an unlikely ally in the U.S. fight against terror, remains on the most recent U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

So because of the great “War on Terror,” the President did not want to act to stop what he admitted was genocide in Darfur, because Sudan was seen as a key ally? I can’t even think about how many levels that is outrageous on.

In late December of 2005, Republican-controlled congress cut $50 million of aid which was supporting those same African Union troops that the president said it was so necessary to support.

Which brings us to the present.

What’s going on right now? International newswire service Agence France Presse sent out a story in early February which began:

The United States on Friday backed away from describing the current violence in Sudan’s Darfur region as genocide, calling it very serious but mostly a series of small attacks by different parties.

[…]
“It is a very serious situation and it’s a series of small attacks and incidents,” [Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi] Frazer said, adding that all parties were involved. “It is not the government directing the militia attacking civilians.”

But Frazer would not respond to a direct question on whether the bloodshed in Darfur still constituted genocide, as then-US secretary of state Colin Powell alleged 17 months ago.

So now they’re backing off what they said earlier? That’s bad. But what’s that? On the same day, the United States is leading the United Nations in a call for UN troops to be sent in? That sounds great! Wikipedia:

On February 3, 2006, as the United States began its month long presidency of the United Nations Security Council, the U.S offered a motion to begin plans to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur. The Security Council agreed unanimously to begin the planning process to send the troops, with a final decision to come later. It called for a 12,000 to 20,000 troop presence in Darfur with the 7,000 African Union troops already there being given new weapons and being incorporated into the UN mission. Furthermore, they would have a greater mandate to protect civilians.

So things there’s finally going to be an intervention? Sort of. Turns out, it’s not quite so rosy as you might think. Wikipedia continues:

Nevertheless, difficulties are expected to arise in finding states willing to contribute troops to the UN mission. Although the United States offered the motion, the U.S is not expected to contribute troops to the mission. Also, Omar al-Bashir, the leader of Sudan who is widely believed to be backing the Janjaweed militias in Darfur, has also frequently stated his opposition to UN peacekeepers in Sudan further complicating the problem. Assuming these problems are overcome, UN troops are still not likely to appear in Darfur for nearly a year.

Another year of bloodshed before an international UN force is going to enter Darfur to intervene. And the United States probably won’t even be offering troops to the coalition?

Let’s get this straight. The Administration’s soldiers are too busy in Iraq to intervene in Darfur, and yet they’re fine with sending in other nation’s troops, to intervene stop a genocide that they’re not so sure is genocide, which is occuring in a country which is our ally in the “War on Terrorism”, but is also on our list of list of state sponsors of international terrorism.

Yep. That’s it. That’s Darfur. The region that the Administration can’t intervene in, but kind of wants to intervene in, even though it really doesn’t. Wonderful. I guess it doesn’t really matter how interested in stopping mass genocide this Administration is, since our troops are tied up in Iraq and maybe soon Iran, anyways.

We’re going to be covering Darfur regularly from now on. Promise.

Filed under: Darfur Related, Z-TDB Blog