Intervention in Darfur

Eric Reeves, who's been one of the most eloquent voices on Darfur, argues that the peace talks in Nigeria are a waste of time, and only military intervention can stop the genocide:

Here, then, is what the people of Darfur are being asked to believe: that a piece of paper signed in Abuja marks a change of heart within a regime of genocidaires that has never abided by any agreement it has ever made with any Sudanese party; that these genocidaires, having been effectively granted veto power over U.N. actions in Darfur, will permit the United Nations to take actions that would end the killing; that Moscow and Beijing, loyal defenders of the National Islamic Front, will soon abandon their old allies in Khartoum and allow U.N. troops to deploy with an appropriate mandate; that, while waiting for a U.N. force that is either not coming or is likely coming without the tools to stop the genocide, an existing African Union mission that has failed to protect Darfuris for two years will suddenly protect them now. In short, they are being asked to accept the genocidal status quo. Never has it been more obvious that only NATO military action can save Darfur. The people of Darfur have been waiting for help for three years. If working through the United Nations is the best the international community has to offer, they will be waiting for a long time to come.

David Rieff, meanwhile, disagrees:

Crusades have a way of backfiring and--however good the intentions of those who call for them--causing harm in places where it is least expected. Yes, in the end, some form of international military deployment in Darfur may be necessary, both to protect Darfuri civilians from attacks by the government of Sudan and its Janjaweed surrogates and to enforce the recent Abuja peace agreement. But this does not mean that the deployment of American forces is the most desirable way to achieve this goal, let alone that such a military commitment is a moral imperative. To the contrary, there is a good case to be made that the United States is the last country that should be leading an international operation in Darfur.

To put the matter starkly, the United States no longer enjoys enough moral credibility in the world as a whole to intervene in Darfur in a way that would avoid deepening the civilizational crisis in which we find ourselves. Intervention would significantly exacerbate America's primary foreign policy challenge, a challenge far more significant in the long run than terrorism: that is, worldwide anti-Americanism. The reasons for this are straightforward and can be summed up by the words "the global war on terror" and by the names "Iraq," "Afghanistan," and "Israel-Palestine." Whether the United States is right or wrong--caught dead to rights or horribly misunderstood--is beside the point. The salient fact is that, in much of the world, the United States is viewed as a bully, an imperial aggressor, and a rogue state determined to apply one law to itself and another to everyone else. In the Islamic world, the situation is far worse. Again, rightly or wrongly, a strong majority of our planet's 1.5 billion Muslims believe that the United States is leading a new crusade against Islam. And it is in this explosive global context that advocates of an intervention in Darfur propose deploying our Armed Forces, as if rubbing salt on that global wound is somehow an insignificant or morally unworthy consideration.

I've argued before that there's no way the US is going to embark on an Iraq-style military intervention in Sudan, and I don't see any reason to change my opinion now, despite the recent increase in awareness of what's happening in Darfur, and the flood of articles like Reeves calling for action, so the dispute seems largely academic. For what it's worth I think Reeves is right to be pessimistic about the Nigerian peace talks, and the prospects of a meaningful UN intervention, and Rieff is right to caution against any US/NATO intervention. I don't, however, buy Rieff's argument that the interventionists are guilty of over-simplification:

My own view is that the main culprit here is human rightsism, a worldview that is based, as John Gray has put it, "on the moral intuitions of the liberal academy ... a legalistic edifice from which politics has been excluded." Were politics present in their thinking, pro-Darfuri intervention activists would not use the reductionist dichotomy of victims and abusers that has been the staple myth of humanitarian intervention. The people being killed by the Janjaweed have political interests. So do the extended families of the Janjaweed themselves, who, lest we forget, are also Darfuris. To describe the former simply as victims deprives them of any agency. To describe the latter simply as killers precludes actually understanding the conflict as anything other than an eruption of human wickedness, rather like a volcano or an earthquake.

Yes, the Janjaweed have homes and families, and are probably kind to their dogs too, but it's a false
sophistication to make out that the situation is really too complex for a one-sided approach. To describe the former [the people being killed] simply as victims deprives them of any agency. What does that mean? Does he think the women from Darfur are somehow asking to be raped, their menfolk complicit in their own slaughter? Sometimes the reductionist dichotomy of victims and abusers is a pretty fair description of what's happening.

Comments

[John Barr]

I think Rieff is just trying to say that he has no problem with people getting massacred as long as mean old Uncle Sam isn't involved. Not his problem, mate.

[P. Froward]

It's true, though, that the US can't afford it, financially or politically, even if it didn't turn into a real mess. I'd pretty much count on it turning into a mess, though.

If we actually care about doing the right thing, our best move would be to ship the victims massive amounts of ordnance, preferably Soviet stuff that doesn't require too much infrastructure to maintain. But that wouldn't go over too well with the "international community". It doesn't have to be the US doing that, though. Pretty much any developed nation could foot the bill easily. What do AK-47s cost, if you're buying a few hundred thousand? Throw in a few shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles[1] and you're good to go.

The funny part is that if we go the diplomatic route full blast and let the Janjaweed finish the job, we'll be blamed for the whole thing. And of course we'll be blamed for the whole thing if we do nothing. But in terms of the national interest, all issues of right and wrong aside, the diplomatic-farce option sounds like our best bet.

[1] http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/MANPADS/MANPADS.html

[SnoopyTheGoon]

"Again, rightly or wrongly, a strong majority of our planet's 1.5 billion Muslims believe that the United States is leading a new crusade against Islam."

I would say that I have an issue with "rightly or wrongly" in this sentence as well, but I realise that it is trifles compared to the big picture...