The Sudanese government has announced that it will no longer fly aircraft over Darfur. It's a small step, but a positive one. The Sudanese airforce has been providing air support and intelligence to the Janjaweed; now they'll have to do without it.
In the long term, the only solution to Darfur is going to come from negotiation backed by sanctions. The sheer size of Darfur as well as poor transport links make putting peacekeepers on the ground practically impossible without the consent of the Sudanese regime. Even with the cooperation of Sudan's neighbours, it would be extremely difficult to keep anything more than a token military force supplied. And while bombing may make people feel better, it won't significantly impede Janjaweed operations, because of the simple fact that they have nothing to bomb. In other words, while military force may be justified, it isn't really a workable option.
What can work is convincing Sudan to either rein in the militas itself, and to allow AU peacekeepers to monitor the situation and protect those in need. Absent military force, this has to be done essentially through economic and political force, dangling carrots such as trade deals and being able to sell oil while threatening sticks such as sanctions and embargos. ICC indictements against members of the Sudanese regime are an important example of the latter. While the Sudanese regime refuses to extradite anyone to face justice, for the 51 accused of participating or condoning crimes against humanity, leaving the country now incurs the risk of prosecution - just like Henry Kissinger or Donald Rumsfeld.
Unfortunately, this method takes time, during which many more people will die. But it's the only one we've got.
5 comments:
Nice to know that if some one was trying to wipe out your race the world community will offer sanctions on you and your killers or trade deals for you and your killers. Both strategies seem to have fairly average records.
I guess we will just have the current status quo for the next ten years.
Posted by Anonymous : 2/07/2005 10:51:00 PM
What would you do? As I've said, while it may be justified (the case is far stronger than that for Iraq), military force isn't a practical option - the logistics is simply too difficult. And while small groups of special forces could be deployed, without serious military force to back them it the dangers for the people of Darfur are simply too great.
I'd love to hear a better option, I really would, but I really don't see any.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 2/07/2005 11:23:00 PM
It would seem that the stick is entirely useless - ie iraq iran north korea (or just about any other country you care to mention) were hardly any more cooperative with the US due to sanctions - if anything the opposite the country just gets indignant.
So sanctions are probably a waste of life (excess deaths - but still deaths).
I guess the trade deals might act as an incentive but not a huge one.
So what to do?
well for one we could have already enforced a no fly zone if those planes were a problem that could have been done a long time ago.
I think bombing might actually help in fact much more so if there are NOT people on the ground. If it is just planes its gets the psychological effect of "justice from heaven" - ie you dont see it coming and there is no possibility or retaliation. Not a lot of bombs and not indiscriminatly - just enough to make them nervous. Besides it could take on a police / revenge feel as opposed to a command and control sort of thing.
politically one could arange for the redrawing of the official map in the region to chop dafur from sudan. How one might go about it is another matter but there is a implication that the boarder is inappropriate (and the country has failed in its duties) if this stuff goes on.
Posted by Genius : 2/08/2005 08:10:00 AM
The situation with Iran and North Korea is rather different. Both have active nuclear programs, and having been named as members of the "Axis of Evil", both now fear attack by the US. Both also seem to believe that posession of nuclear weapons will give them some immunity to such attacks. The incentives therefore work to encourage them to ignore sanctions, and to keep doing exactly what they're doing...
The problem with bombing is that the janjaweed have nothing to bomb. They're a tribal militia, not an army; they have no infrastructure, no bases, nothing fixed or permanant. Bombing cannot therefore erode their ability to conduct attacks. Tactical airstrikes could, but they require both intelligence and good targetting, and run a severe risk of simply causing retribution against innocent civilians. As the aim is to make things better rather than worse, I don't think that's a good option. We shouldn't be risking other people's lives just so we can feel as if we're doing something.
As for "redrawing of the official map", your ignorance is showing. There is no "official map". Borders are not set centrally; they are negotiated between each country and its neighbours. The US and the west could refuse to recognise Sudan's claims to the area, but the problem isn't really so much an independence movement (though there is one) as the Sudanese government's refusal to prevent some of its citizens from murdering some of its other citizens.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 2/11/2005 06:47:00 PM
> The incentives therefore work to encourage them to ignore sanctions
I dont see how the incentives are much different to everyone elses'. But I guess you convinced yourself.
> Bombing cannot therefore erode their ability to conduct attacks.
You missed my point I guess. The point in this context would not be to erode their ability to conduct attacks (command and control) that is only appropraite against organized armies and even then assumes you prefer disorganized armies to organized ones.
The aim instead would be to erode their willpower. You could have a number of projects one being to watch their movements and when they cause a major event - exact retribution on their camp.
> But they require both intelligence and good targetting, and run a severe risk of simply causing retribution against innocent civilians.
Unfortunatly if you dont want to harm innocent civilians you should go home with your tail between your legs. You obviusly have no tools for applying pressure. good guys will play fair and not hide behind civilians so you can bomb them but bad guys wont.
Personally I think at the national level it is an a crime to kill people through inaction as wel as killing them through action. just watching sudan is equivilent to not bothering to have a health budget.
> Borders are not set centrally; they are negotiated between each country and its neighbours.
No need to be rude. your just looking at it from a different angle. yes the boarder is effectively an agreed boarder between the two countries but where those countries agree to put it and what would be deemed legitimate when there is a dispute is significant to that negotiation. You might notice that although various countries armies might be the congo (or similar countries) we dont redraw the official maps every other day to allow for some fluctuation in the battle lines despite the fact that the country that is winning might want to annex a diamond mine or two.
In the end the boarders almost always return to aproximatly where they started (despite the fact that those boarders are generally recognised as quite stupidly placed in africa).
Governments govern via both force and percieved legitimacy more of the latter than the former usually.
> as the Sudanese government's refusal to prevent some of its citizens from murdering some of its other citizens.
come on now that is a nonsense argument. You are saying the problem isnt that the sudanese government is on control its jsut that they arent doing the right thing. obviously if they all become saints the problem is solved another solution is for them to get replaced by decent people.
Posted by Genius : 2/12/2005 01:07:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).