PhotoDude.com

Fri. Jul 30, 2004

The Semantics of Sudan

I continue to be appalled … and instructed … by the reaction of the UN (and below, the EU) to 30,000 murders in Sudan, and “imminent danger” to millions more. It’s been over a month since UN Secretary Kofi Annan and Colin Powell made a special trip to Sudan. A month later, they can’t even agree on the wording of the most minimal of actions:

Bowing to opposition on the U.N. Security Council, the United States dropped the word “sanctions” from a draft resolution on Sudan on Thursday, but kept a threat of economic action if Khartoum fails to disarm Arab militias blamed for widespread atrocities in the western region of Darfur.

The Security Council was to vote Friday on the resolution, which was revised four times in a week as the United States sought to overcome objections to the threat of sanctions, stressing the need to act urgently.

Meanwhile, violence continued in Darfur, where at least 30,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million displaced as pro-government militias known as Janjaweed staged a brutal campaign to drive out black African farmers in a 17-month conflict over dwindling resources.

ABCNews: “U.S. Modifies Resolution on U.N. Sudan”

Meanwhile…

Arab militias chained civilians together and set them on fire in Sudan’s western Darfur region, where tens of thousands have been killed in a 17-month conflict, according to a report by an African Union monitoring team.

The monitoring team originally investigated the attack at Suleia after a complaint by the Sudanese government against the two rebels groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice for Equality Movement. But the monitoring team found that the attack was carried out by the Janjaweed.

AP-Middle East: “Report details militia torture in Darfur”

Meanwhile…

…huddled in refugee camps that lack food and medicine, Darfur’s civilians are dying at an estimated rate of 1,000 a day.

The Europeans know that the killings in Darfur probably constitute genocide, as Congress recognized last week, but they shrank from calling it that. They suggested they might increase their support for the African Union’s cease-fire monitors in Darfur, but stopped short of calling for a force large enough to protect civilians from the government-backed militia.

African countries stand ready to send troops, provided that rich countries pay their passage. Over the weekend, Australia’s foreign minister declared that his country was also willing to contribute, and Britain’s top military commander, Gen. Mike Jackson, said his country could muster 5,000 troops. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell described Gen. Jackson’s suggestion as “premature” yesterday, but how long is Darfur supposed to remain patient? Until 100,000 die? Or 200,000? The rich world’s governments are free to make that choice.

Washington Post: “How Many More Deaths?”

Here we have an example of multilateral international “action.” Over 30,000 have been murdered, over 1 million rendered homeless, and every passing day brings nearly a thousand more deaths. Meanwhile, the UN dithers over the wimpiest of words, “sanctions,” and others debate whether it is really “genocide.”

And every day the virtual inaction continues, another thousand die.

There are no large international business contracts at risk. They don’t have oil. They don’t compose a struggling beachhead of democracy. They don’t sit astride strategic geography.

They’re just dying, in increasingly horrid ways. And in the arena of international diplomacy/bureaucracy, that gets a much lower priority, and must meet much more stringent requirements … to even call it what it is.

Never mind take effective steps to quickly put it to an end.

As the Washington Post asks, what’s the magic number? Clearly 30,000 is much too low. Hardly an “ante” worthy of using the word “sanctions.” In the case of Yugoslavia, it took a quarter million deaths before the Moral Powers of The West took effective action.

The people of Darfur have a long and murderous wait ahead of them.