PhotoDude.com

Sun. Jun 27, 2004

A Lack of Capital

It could be anywhere. It might be the Sudan.

NASA photos of the Darfur region of western Sudan show destruction in nearly 400 villages and there have been reports of fighting or threatened attacks in every camp for displaced people, the U.S. aid chief said Wednesday.

Andrew Natsios, administrator of the Agency for International Development [...] said the U.S. government has spent $116 million on the relief effort in Sudan more than all other donors combined “and we pledged $188 million between now and the end of next year.”

The United States is moving “with a maximum sense of urgency to try to save lives,” said Ranneberger, who accompanied Natsios. “We don’t have time to sit around also and decide, is this ethnic cleansing or is this genocide, or what is it.”

ABC News: “Photos Show Destruction of Sudan Villages“

We’ve done “more than all other donors combined,” but it’s becoming clear that throwing more money into humanitarian aid isn’t enough. But we may be about to find out cash is the only capital we have left to apply.

Kofi Annan and Colin Powell are attempting to raise the profile of this conflict by visiting Sudan this week. But the Washington Post reports, “The Sudanese government dispatched 500 men last week to this sweltering camp of 40,000 near El Fashir, capital of North Darfur state, the refugees and aid workers said. The men, some dressed in civilian clothes, others in military uniforms, warned the refugees to keep quiet about their experiences when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan visit the region next week [...] The men also told the villagers that they would impersonate victims when the U.S. and U.N. delegations arrived and tell them that the government had done nothing wrong and that rebels operating against the government in the region were to blame, the villagers and aid workers said.”

It’s an obvious mess, one that’s already cost tens of thousands of lives, but what to do? In addition to saying the situation is “bordering on ethnic cleansing,” Annan said, “‘I don’t think we are ready to send in the cavalry, and I’m not sure I have that many countries ready to go,’ he said. But he noted that the international community sent a force to East Timor when Indonesia failed to protect its people.”

That was a force spearheaded by the Australians. Who would be the spearhead in the Sudan? Annan is unfortunately correct, he doesn’t have many (if any) countries ready to send forces there. Either willing, or able. And before we could ever get to that point, a lot of people will surely ask a question Phil Carter capably answers:

Why should we care about Sudan though? I could make the liberal internationalist argument that America should care about genocide wherever it happens because it’s our obligation to care as a world leader. I could make a soft argument about the need for moral leadership, and how we should do here what we failed to do in Rwanda. (See Samantha Power’s brilliant, Pulitzer Prize-winning “A Problem from Hell” for more on these arguments.) But instead, I’ll point out one not-so-insignificant fact:

Q: What nation hosted Osama Bin Laden and allowed Al Qaeda to thrive during the 1990s when Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan didn’t want him?

A: Sudan.

We let states fail, and failed states crumble, at our own peril.

It could be anywhere. It might be the Sudan. But what will we do, when we have to do something?

A decade or so ago, I got very angry because it took us so long to force some kind action in Bosnia, and then Kosovo, when we all knew genocide was happening again in Europe. But during much of that time, we had a President whose every move was scrutinized and assumed to be at least partisan if not purely evil by a large chunk of this country. By his past actions, he had hamstrung his future actions. And thus, our nation’s foreign policy. Even when it really mattered (that is, if you believe stopping ethnic cleansing and genocide “really matters”).

When he needed to be able to influence, to draw on the bank of goodwill, to have the capital to force a hard choice … to save lives ... people would look at him and almost half would immediately think the worst. Remember, this is the era that introduced the phrase “wag the dog.” Oh, yes, we eventually managed to get the international community to do the right thing, and we spearheaded it. After a quarter million had been killed, like the thousands butchered at Srebrenica. But Clinton had reached the point where he lacked the political capital to truly lead, when there were hard choices to be made, and a public to be convinced.

I wonder if we’ve reached the same point again. The articles linked above make a good case that it may be time for the international community to move forces into Sudan, and, as usual, the US will have to take the lead. At the very least, on the diplomatic and logistic fronts. But even if it isn’t this case, another will arise.

It could be anywhere. It might be the Sudan. But there will soon come a time where the right thing to do will be to deploy US forces, either as part of a peacekeeping effort, or in response to an attack on the US or one of our allies. As always, it will be a tough choice, and a hard sell (think back to the debates at the UN over Iraq). Does Bush have the requisite capital to do that anymore? Or has he, too, reached the point where his every move is scrutinized and assumed to be at least partisan if not purely evil by a large chunk of this country? By his past actions, has he hamstrung his future actions? And thus, our nation’s foreign policy?

It’s a question I think about a lot lately. Because I’ve seen it before, and I think it cost lives.

The situation in the Sudan is bad, and rapidly worsening, so I hope we find the will to do what’s needed. But I fear there will come a time when we really need to … and we won’t have the capital. Some day we’re going to come up short.