Don't make me come over there

From one of David's favorite objects of scrutiny, Spiegel Online on Darfur:

For the government in Khartoum the rainy season comes at a convenient time. It wants the fewest possible foreign eyewitnesses who will be able to send back reports of starvation and genocide. These days, the international community has made the "Wild West" of this multiracial state its most important concern. Europeans, Americans, and the UN have finally roused themselves and have put pressure on the military regime of 60-year-old Islamic General Umar al-Bashir.

Ok, so we're finally acknowledging that this really is the will of those cherubic little kittens in Khartoum. That sounds like progress!

Last April, the German Federal Government succeeded in getting the UN Security Council to deal with the subject of Darfur; several cabinet members publicly criticized the violation of human rights in Darfur. Subsequently Colin Powell, Joschka Fischer, and Kofi Annan went to Sudan. Clearly the subtext of their visit was that this African country, the largest in Africa, is too important for the chaos in Darfur - a region the size of France - to be ignored.

It's a good thing they chose to deal with the subject, so that it wouldn't be ignored! Thanks to their attention... well, nothing changed. Ah, but that all important subtext was introduced. I wonder how many people that subtext prevented from being butchered, starving, or dying from cholera when they were forced off their lands. Because I wonder about things like that.

Last Monday the European Union also denounced the orgies of slaughter and expulsion. Great Britain even considered sending 5,000 troops, then decided in favor of a UN force.

The next day Sudan summoned the German and British ambassadors to protest any interference or possible intervention. Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said his country would "not submit quietly" but would "strike back." Ambassador Hans-Günter Gnodtke was told in no uncertain terms that the Germans should "moderate their hostile attitude."

Uh-oh - that almost sounds like das unilateralist cowgirls aren't respecting Sudan's sovereignty. I'm already gearing up to mournfully explain to them that "perhaps now they will understand that the world sees them as arrogant"... but maybe I'm counting my chickens a bit too soon.

The Khartoum regime at once rejected the resolution, which required that it disarm the Janjaweed whom it had up to now been half tolerating, half supporting. The UN has set a deadline of 30 days to bring peace to the region. Otherwise, short of imposing sanctions, the Security Council will decide on "measures" that would amount to the same thing. But the resolution was toned down in one important respect: There was no explicit mention of genocide - so the option of military intervention remains open.

Now they'd better watch it, or the UN will become really unhinged! They have 30 days to stop it, or else they'll be told to stop it again! Then again, since we already know that "dire consequences" means "we'll tell you again", I guess "measures" would be something less - "we'll pretend you did what we said" perhaps, because I really doubt that it means "sanctions". That could create problems for TotalFina Elf, after all.

George W. Bush, his eye on the U.S. Black vote, cannot afford to tolerate the situation in Darfur without doing something. But since another military intervention is not opportune for Washington after its costly adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. has urged the UN and the European Union to take action.

As any sufficiently indoctrinated enlightened person will know, George W. Bush naturally has an ulterior motive in Darfur, unlike altruistic Germany (the fact that Germany imports over 90% of it's oil is certainly not a factor). Spiegel's conjecture cultivated insight into black America must certainly be on target, because being as worldly and cultured as I'm assured that Germans are, it couldn't be racist presumption. Doubtless, Darfur will be the deciding issue among black American voters, as there certainly couldn't be any issue more relevant to black Americans. I may never know how Spiegel became so faultlessly familiar with the black American voter. I'm also not sure when 'black' became a proper noun, I must have missed that memo.

The Europeans, on the other hand, are ready to provide eight of the 150 observers who are to supervise the anticipated suspension of hostilities from six locations in Darfur and report any irregularities to the African Union in Addis Ababa. The AU apparently will send 360 soldiers in early August to protect the observers. These soldiers would comprise the first neutral military group in Darfur. The European Union intends to finance them to the tune of twelve million euros.

That's it, I'm sold on the multilateralist paradigm! Europe is ready to provide eight of 150 observers. I understand now, this is the proper way to project authority and resolve crisis. Yes, now I'm confident that Europe can take on responsibilities in the world, causing miscreants of every stripe to straighten up and fly right - or else they'll be reported. "Halten! Schtop dis killink, or else I vill be tellink on you!". There'd better not be any monkey business after that, or you might risk losing phone priveleges for a whole week, and no desert with your subsidy.

Russia has just sold twelve MIG-29 fighter planes to Khartoum. Renault has assured itself of a near-monopoly for buses. Korea is the principal source of automobile imports. Arab states import large quantities of meat from Sudan, and not the least of their worries is that the U.S. could topple still another Arab government, this time with help from the UN.

Ah good, no incentives for the U.N. to coddle a murderous regime then. Carry on.

But primarily it is the Sudanese oil reserves, an estimated two billion barrels, that make the country such a focus of attention. For example, China National Petrol Corporation has obtained a license to work the oilfields, among them Block 6 which extends through the south of Darfur. Last week the European-Asiatic consortium Petrodar signed a 1.4 billion euro deal.

Businesses deals like this require basically stable conditions. Joschka Fischer's unequivocal declaration that "Darfur cannot be left to its own devices" is therefore not just a hollow phrase, but a program. Escalating unrest and a government that doesn't have a grip on the situation in its own country are poison to profitable trade.

Uh-oh - this is starting to sound like unilateralist meddling with other countrys' sovereignty again... and isn't the problem that the government does have a grip on the situation? Ah, I almost missed the transition to "nuance mode"... you have to do that before you start sympathizing with Khartoum again.

Recently 50,000 Darfuri have lost their lives. In some of the refugee camps there is only one well for thousands of people. As recently as July 3rd Bashir promised the UN that he would disarm the Janjaweed within 90 days. Four thousand out of a total of 6,000 soldiers have arrived already to protect the population, Bashir said.

Do you mean "recently" as in "since April, when Germany succeeded in getting the U.N. to deal with Darfur"? I guess you do. Well, at least it looks like Bashir is serious about restoring some semblance of normalcy, stability, and decency to these people's lives - he sent 4,000 of 6,000 troops. Since it only took a month for him to do it, I guess we can rely on him to take care of things. One way or another.


I've gotta stop here or I'll never get anything done today, but I can't until I say this:

If we lived in some kind of world where we could try one path, then bring back all the dead and try another, I'd cheerfully say "Europe - do it to it. Take the lead, balls to the wall". I'd do that confident in the knowledge that if and when it all went colossally FUBAR, we could fix it and even get in an "I told you so", and hey - I probably wouldn't even be one of the ones who had to die. No skin off my nose.

We don't have a world anything like that though. In the world we have, there are thousands upon thousands of people living without shelter, in places where many have a hard time finding potable water in the midst of a rainy season, where they're as far from their homes as they've been able to get, and the rest of us have trouble finding them and getting food to them. They deal with this while trying to keep their families from being cut down by roving bands of thugs, and their government is on the thugs' side, not theirs. When they're gone, they don't come back - we have a choice as to whether we'll just let them go. I thought that choice was already made after Rwanda, but I might have been mistaken.

Talking, and stroking, and coddling, and nuancing with subtexts is all great sport, but these people don't have time for astronomically useless pantywaists to go through all that bromidic pomp. Save the sermons for when it's your own life hinging on your ideals. Moralistic castigation about diplomacy, respect, and global fraternity erases no impending consequence; when these people are gone, we're not absolved for having observed the proper international mating rituals. If we keep this crap up, we're going to talk these people to death.

When those in power visit death and misery on the masses they should be charged with leading forward, playing footsie with them has not ever resolved it for the better. What resolves it for the better is big guys with guns, and people at home who believe in them and their mission; we should be tired of learning this by now. Observe whatever you like, Europe; we need to find some cowboys.