History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Today's Washington Post has the best editorial I have yet seen in a major newspaper on the ongoing nightmare in Darfur. The murders and rapes and beatings and forced removals continue virtually unabated. The Sudan is doing everything but thumbing their nose at the respectable world. The money lines come at the end:
The allies are starting to discuss another U.N. resolution, but this seems likely yet again to lack a real threat of sanctions. Up to a point, this is understandable: Security Council members such as China are opposed to strong action, and the United States is conserving limited military and diplomatic resources for Iraq and the war on terrorism. But Darfur's crisis is so awful that the usual balancing of national priorities is immoral. Some 300,000 people may have died in Darfur so far, and the dying is not yet finished.
The president has won his election. It is time to push the world to act or to act alone.
Chris has a point about the French troops being under UN Command, from which I draw an opposite conclusion. Chris has it that it was up to the UN to retaliate, if at all. Looking at the UN record, one can understand why nations are reluctant to put their own troops under UN command. It is in fact highly improbable that the UN would vote to retaliate when the loss was felt by France alone.
I opened my paper this morning to discover that Annan (or as I call him, Onan) has urged the UN to give Sudan "the strongestpossible warning". That is just too funny. The UN spent 11 years giving Iraq the strongest possible warnings, and then did nothing. The problem with UN military structure is that it is composed of troops from nation states, commanded by troops from nation states, each of which has its own national interest, possibly at odds with UN interests (assuming there is such a thing). Take Bosnia. The UN declared a sanctuary. But when Bosnian Serbs closed in on the sanctuary, and the Dutch UN troops demanded air support, the French general in command denied it to them -- the Bosnian Serbs had a few hundred French prisoners. So the UN, which had been nice enough to gather 8,000 unarmed Muslim men in one place, helpfully turned them over to their murderers, even providing the Serbs with gas for the trucks necessary to transport the men to the killing fields. Your UN dollars at work. Now here's my question. Given the evident great concern for human rights, why haven't the peace through law types demanded the prosecution of General Janvier and the Dutch commander for crimes against humanity? Just a question.
Derek Charles Catsam -
11/18/2004
The United States never signed over its sovereignty and ability to act in foreign affairs when it joined the UN or other treaties. i doubt that most Eurpoean nations did either. This is where you are correct, Richard, and Chris is wrong.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
11/18/2004
Chris --
You're as bad as the Bellesiles folks. This has nothing to do with israel, your hatred of israel, or anything related to Israel. The analogy is simply nonsense.
And it is clear you have no idea about the situation in C'ote D'Ivoire -- the country is on the verge of civil war. It would be a disaster. France is right to intervene. The UN has proven itself to be a worthless peacekeeper in Africa. While the UN and folks like you preach its virtues, people tend to die by the hundreds of thousands. I do not support might makes right, I support right allows for use of might. it is a huge but vital distinction. The UN has been ineffective throughout Africa. At a certain point, we ought not to be rewarding failure. I'd tell you to ask 800,000 rwandans, but thery died as a result of UN fecklessness. How many more, Chris? How many more? Your willingness to sit back and stand on principle while people are slaughtered is galling.
dc
Richard Henry Morgan -
11/18/2004
I think the problem is resolution fixation -- it allows nations to do nothing, secure in the knowledge that China (or some other nation) will bar any UN Security Council action. The warrant is there already: the Genocide Treaty.
The Treaty has contracting parties committed to implementing legislation necessary to implement the Treaty, which includes prevention of genocide. One article says contracting states CAN refer instances to the UN for action, but nowhere does the Treaty demand that. It's something of a scandal that the nations of the EU refuse to do their part under the treaty.
chris l pettit -
11/18/2004
what is happening in Dafur, Cote d'Ivorie, and Palestine are all atrocities and crimes against humanity, don;t get me wrong. the phrases genocide and cultural genocide most definitely apply in the cases of Dafur and Palestine, respectively. It is just that your approach is as counterproductive as the ones being currently taken. When you take the ideological approach, and hypocritically point out one atrocity while accepting and allowing others, you lose all credibility. Not that ideologues are concerned with such things, as they are only interested in what fits into their little self interested universe.
What about US support of Chadian militias and paramilitary groups fighting the Janjaweed and committing atrocities (I have been in the area and seen the results)? What about French support of the Sudanese government (among others who also support)? What about US and French support for atrocities committed by the rebel groups in Cote d'Ivorie?
Your ideological viewpoints are very one sided, hypocritical, and leave much to be desired in terms of securing true peace and human rights internationally. Why don;t we deal with all war criminals and criminals against humanity equally under an objective system...such as the ICC or international tribunals? The answer is easy...it would not allow Israel, the US, France, and the other "might makes right" believers to practice their own version of "justice" and eradicating "evil."
By the way...didnt get to respond to the ideological post on Cote d'Ivorie below...
Since when does France have the right to destroy another nations air force without any sort of mandate? There was no "self defense" issue under Article 51 because the peacekeepers were UN, not French government....therefore it was for the UN to take action, not the French. What you advocate is, as usual, the desecration of international law and the promotion of might makes right politics. Why dont we just give up on law altogether and just resort to power struggles since that seems to be what everyone wants to advocate anyway?
