WP: Hollow on Darfur

[gottaB]

THE BUSH administration has circulated a draft United Nations resolution on Sudan's conflict, aimed principally at underpinning the recent peace agreement between the government and rebels in the south. Given the sex crimes committed by U.N. peacekeepers in Congo, it's good that the proposed U.N. deployment in Sudan is coupled with a requirement that the United Nations monitor peacekeepers' conduct; the Congo scandal has damaged the United Nations' image in Africa as much as the oil-for-food scandal has damaged its reputation in the United States. But the hard questions about the new resolution concern Darfur, Sudan's western province, where the Bush administration has determined that the government's policies amount to genocide. The draft resolution includes a useful call for targeted sanctions against suspected war criminals but sidesteps the most urgent challenge: to get a significant peacekeeping force into Darfur.

Darfur is as big as France, and its notional cease-fire is being monitored by an African Union force of about 1,000. The force has no mandate to go beyond monitoring to protect civilians, and it has limited logistical capacity. Last year, when Sudan's government agreed to its deployment, it was hoped that even an underpowered external presence would serve to deter violence. But the violence has since intensified. The scheduled arrival of 2,000 more African Union troops is unlikely to improve matters unless the force gets a stronger mandate and greater logistical support.

The best way to beef up the force's logistical capability would be to supply NATO assistance. Last year NATO's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, floated this possibility; France quickly torpedoed it, apparently because it does not want NATO projecting force in Africa, an arena in which France likes to exert unilateral power. But this shameful obstructionism need not be the last word on the matter. Last weekend Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan both spoke positively about possible NATO involvement in Darfur.

Hollow on Darfur....

[Igel]

1. They lack the will, they lack the means ...

and they're trying hard to lack the motivation.

No more ... uh ... what was that word? Gen ... Gen ... shucks, can't remember what I was trying to say. I know! No more Gennessee! Czechvar!

[gottaB]

2. The US has consistently approached Darfur negotiations upsidedown

In order to minimize the loss of life, the priorities should be: (1) peacekeeping, (2) nofly zone, (3) reconstruction, (4) targeted sanctions, (5) legal repurcussions for the perpetrators. The US has been firm on sanctions and rejecting the ICC. It has been wobbly on peacekeepers and grounding military flights and peacekeepers. Naturally, the actual negotiating maneuvers are extremely complex, but on the surface, US diplomacy would appear to be no less parochial and self-interested than French diplomacy.