Darfur Needs Action

The situation in the Darfur province of Sudan has been described as civil war by some and genocide by others, but almost everyone has conceded that the situation is disturbing. Innocent non-Arab Africans in Darfur are being murdered, raped and displaced by government sponsored Arab militias, the Janjaweed. Admittedly, this brief summary of the chaos does little to acknowledge the totality of the suffering in Darfur. It does not account for the gruesome stories of rape in which young girls are tied down and sexually assaulted by numerous men. It does not account for the many stories of Janjaweed soldiers demanding that a mother chose one of her children to be killed. It does not account for those who have survived the militia attacks, yet suffer from starvation in refugee camps. This essay and any essay that attempts summarize the suffering in Darfur, does an injustice to actual reality of the situation. Reading about Darfur’s genocide, in our magazines and newspapers, is comparatively easier than a first person account of dead bodies and thrashed villages. In considering these factors it would be difficult not to support United States military intervention in Darfur that would look to stabilize the situation and provide protection for those who desperately need it.
Quite naturally, the first factor considered in supporting military intervention in Darfur is the severity of humanitarian crisis. Both proponents and opponents of military intervention have conceded that the situation in Darfur is deplorable. While some have attempted to categorize the Darfur situation as civil war, in 2004 upon returning from his trip to the Sudan, “Secretary [Colin] Powell told the U.S. Congress that the State Department had concluded that genocide had been committed and that the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed bore responsibility” (Clough). It was after the 1994 Rwandan genocide that the United Nations Security Counsel made a “never again” commitment, essentially acknowledging that never again would the international community allow such humanitarian crisis go uncontested. This commitment has been tested in Darfur’s genocide, yet despite this commitment the international community has been either unwilling to act or unwilling to sanction the Sudanese government with any real consequences. Accounts of Nazi Germany and the Rwandan genocide invoke emotions of shock, disbelief, and horror as they also summon the questions “Why didn’t anyone do anything?” If nothing is done to bring stability to Darfur, then history will look upon this time with the same questions and similar guilt, and once again the U.N. Security Counsel will be making a “never again” commitment.
There is no question that the situation in Darfur is horrific and that the genocide should be stopped. This is not the point of disagreement in considering military intervention in Darfur. Many opponents of U.S. military intervention note that the protection of Darfur’s people is simply not the responsibility of the United States. These pundits point to the Sudanese government, the African Union, or the United Nations as the bearers of this responsibility. While this argument may hold a degree of truth, it is problematic when considering the reality of each suggested protector. It would be logical to contest that a government is responsible for the protection and well being of its constituents, however Darfur is not a logical situation. The Sudanese government is actually funding the Janjaweed militias that have been committing these heinous crimes. It would be just as difficult to legitimately establish the African Union as the bearer of responsibility. Many of the states in the African Union have difficultly handling unrest within their own boarders. This and the newness of the A.U., having been established in 2002, combine to make the organization relatively weak. The A.U. itself is not strong enough to handle the situation in Darfur. Even displaced Darfurians have reservations about the A.U.’s ability to handle the crisis. One interviewee explained to journalist Samantha Power that “African troops were too susceptible to bribes,” and that “We will not return to our homes until the white people come and make us safe” (Power).
Since the Sudanese government and the AU have failed, it has been asserted that the protection of Darfur’s people is the responsibility of the United Nations. This assertion is somewhat laughable since many critics of the U.N. have compared the organization’s political strength to that of a toothless dog. The political strength of the U.N. is another matter to be argued, but in the case of Darfur, U.N. resolutions and threats of sanctions have not stopped the slaughtering. U.N. Security Counsel Resolutions 1556, which demanded the Sudanese government disarm the Janjaweed, and 1564, which called for the Sudanese government “to end the climate of impunity in Darfur”, have been hollow threats with few consequences for the uncooperative Sudanese government (Clough). Furthermore, the U.N. is an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated that state sovereignty is its primary concern. This doctrine conflicts with taking a hard-line stance toward the Sudanese government.
Who then shall be the protector of Darfur’s people when the bureaucracy fails? The fact that Darfurians are not U.S. citizens is not enough to conclude that the United States holds no responsibility in this matter. Surely the U.S. has acted in other matters to “liberate” an oppressed people. This type of reasoning can partly explain entering into the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Furthermore, America has symbolized itself has the protectors of democracy and peace. The American conscience can not easily avoid the responsibility of Darfur with this type of unwritten declaration.
Opponents of U.S. military action have also contested that any foreign military intervention would disrupt peace negations between north and south Sudan. While the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 has demanded a permanent ceasefire, Janjaweed militias still terrorize Darfur. Nicholas Kristof, of the New York Times, notes how the Sudanese government has reneged on its commitments under the CPA.
[The Sudanese Government] still hasn’t withdrawn all of its troops from the south; it keeps delaying a census needed for the elections; and it appears to be cheating the south of oil revenues. And the U.S. and other countries have acquiesced in all this.
-Kristof
Accounts such as these undermine the legitimacy of such peace talks. Refusals to grant journalists visas further imply that the Sudanese government will not or are unable to stop the Janjaweed from terrorizing innocent people (Kristof).
It has become apparent that the sole knowledge of genocide in Darfur is not enough to motivate U.S. military intervention. “America needs a reason to intervene that relates to its economic interest and diplomatic agenda” (Booker). Stability in Darfur could also have some economic benefits, as Darfur yields 2 billion dollars annually from oil revenue. Due to a 1997 executive order American oil companies are not allowed to operate in Sudan, leaving the oil reserves to benefit Chinese, Swedish, and Canadian oil companies (Clough). With gas prices continuing to increase in historic proportions, it would not hurt to develop an economic relationship with a stable and genocide free Sudan. Stability in Sudan would help bring economic stability the region, especially in Chad which has had to house many of the displaced Darfurians (Kristof and Reeves).
The argument over how to handle Darfur has been divided into different discourses and the arguments of both the proponents and opponents of U.S. military intervention have been thoroughly examined. Opponents of U.S. military intervention have noted, and justly so, every possible negative associated with military intervention. These opponents have suggested that military intervention will stall peace talks, incite even more violence, and will be too similar to the U.S. intervention in Somalia. The possible negatives of U.S. military intervention should not be overlooked, but what if opponents of military intervention are wrong? Is it inconceivable for a U.S. military presence to actually have a positive impact? Surely there are some Darfarian girls that would be thankful to the U.S. for sparing them from the possibility rape. Surely there are some Darfurian mothers that would welcome a U.S. presence to insure the safety of their children. It seems apparent that the dire consequences lie in the argument against military action. Diplomacy has produced few results. It is now time for America to act.









Works Cited
Booker, Salih. “Editorials & Comment: Genocide in Darfur.” The Nation. 279.2 (2004): 1-8.

Clough, Michael. “Darfur: Whose Responsibility to Protect?” Human Rights Watch. New York. January 2005. Accessed on 3/24/08: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k5/darfur/1.htm

Kristof, Nicholas D. “A Genocide Foretold.” New York Times. February 28, 2008. Accessed 4/6/08: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html

Power, Samantha. “Dying in Darfur.” New Yorker. Vol. 80, Issue 24, pg. 56-73. August 2004. Accessed through database: Academic Search Premier.
Reeves, Eric. “Sudan Resumes Civilian Destruction in West Darfur” Sudan Tribune. February 20th, 2008. Accessed on 4/6/08: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article26