Supporting "action" in Darfur is now the fashionable thing to do on elite liberal campuses, yet what do people really mean when they ask for action from the United States government? The United Nations has already taken decisive action in Sudan, including the passing of multiple Security Council resolutions. If resolutions 1556, 1564, 1590 and 1591 have proven ineffective, then what options are left for the United States government? The United Nations has already called for the government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed militias and bring justice to leaders, implemented a military flight ban over the Darfur region and established a United Nations Mission in Sudan consisting of up to 10,000 military personnel and 715 civilian police who are meant to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan. College campuses, with their nebulous calls for action, have not defined what exactly U.S. government "action" should be. Perhaps U.S. military action is the best option, but campuses are afraid to promote this viewpoint, due to their antipathy for President Bush and the Iraq war.
President George W. Bush met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan this February to discuss the need for more peacekeepers in Darfur. Since then, Bush has called to double the size of the NATO force in Sudan. The Senate followed suit by passing Resolution 383, calling for NATO involvement in the region. Bush also requested $123 million for peacekeeping in Darfur, which would go towards maintenance of airlift, fuel and camps. On March 2, the Senate unanimously called upon the president to initiate a NATO no-fly zone to help deploy a NATO bridging force.
Organizations such as the Darfur Action Network call for an immediate response from the U.S. government. They request further NATO action in the area, increased no-fly zones, at least $200 million for African Union peacekeepers operating in the area and passage of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. The DPAA calls for increased U.S. funding of NATO and peacekeepers, blocking assets and restricting the visas of Sudanese officials and Janjaweed militia commanders and denying port access to ships carrying Sudanese oil.
To further complicate the situation, many Sudanese citizens are against a U.N. presence. On March 8, thousands of people marched through Khartoum, Sudan's capital, to protest against U.N. plans to take over peacekeeping operations in Darfur. Protests were encouraged by violent rhetoric in Islamic newspapers. Many believe the country's sovereignty is at stake, and militia groups have warned of a holy war. Mohamed Elsamani, Sudan's minister of state for foreign affairs, said Sudan is unwilling to accept the presence of Western troops in any U.N. intervention, stating, "Regarding the bad conduct or treatment of some, whatever linked with the UN or individual countries like America, how it is treating people in Guantanamo, how the allies are treating people in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib prison, or killing civilians - it is not a process which will be accepted in Sudan."
Those calling for action from the U.S. government need to be clearer with what the definition of "action" really is. It is obvious and that the world must respond to horrible human-rights atrocities that are occurring in Darfur. Yet Bush and the U.S. armed forces are left unable to take decisive action because of the lack of political support for the war in Iraq.
The United Nations has already passed numerous resolutions against the Darfur genocide, yet these have not proven effective means. Military action in Sudan, if it is to happen simultaneously with the war in Iraq, must be fully backed by U.S. citizens. This situation seems unlikely, given the current administration's plummeting popularity. If those calling for action against genocide are only proposing that America issue a few meaningless paper statements with disapproving rhetoric, consider it done. Talking about the importance of human rights is the easy part. But if global citizens really care about stopping genocide, heavy-handed military intervention must be considered before it's too late.
Laura Martin '06 thinks "Peace Corps" is an oxymoron.
