Bombing Sudan

Mark Helprin had one of those let's bomb Sudan and everyone who doesn't want to do so immediately is obviously complicit in genocide in Darfur op-eds the other day. The trouble, as Mark Goldberg from UN Dispatch points out, is that this is completely detached from the nature of the problem in Darfur, which wouldn't at all be solved even if the Sudanese government was "persuaded" by air strikes to withdraw its forces from the arena. What's needed to provide security are actual boots on the ground that can do some good, and "So far, the only organizations willing to take on this challenge are the African Union and UN peacekeeping, which Helprin dismisses as a 'camping trip to the tower of babble.'"

Now Mark's far too polite to point this out, but what you're seeing once again is that there's a certain set of people for whom Darfur is an interesting situation just insofar as it provides a venue for UN-bashing and a "more bombs would make the world awesome" worldview. It's obviously frustrating to contemplate how unsatisfactory current UN and AU efforts in Sudan have been, but the reality is that they've done much more good than anything else. The idea that if we would just cast off these shackles of multilateralism that an excellent solution is just around the corner is daft.

Comments

Interview the Mark Helprin, Salon 7/15/96:

"I write about war heroes because they are ever at risk of their lives. The interest of the group comes ahead of your own personal experience. This is important to politics, as well as in literature. If you think too much of yourself, and about preserving yourself, you don't have the spark of life. It is the same thing from a literary point of view. The liveliness of character and personality comes from one's commitment to the world. Something that puts you at the door of death can do that.

I once had that experience. I was cross-country skiing down a glacier on Mt. Rainier, jumping crevasses. I was sailing over those crevasses one after another. I was perhaps a little out of it, maybe there was not enough oxygen in my blood cells. I sailed over one patch of snow and fell into a deep crevasse. I tumbled in, and was showered with snow and ice crystals. I can still feel the taste of them as they touched my lips. It looked to be 600 feet down. I thought I was going to die. I was in ecstasy."

Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of cross-country skiing.

Posted by joejoejoe | March 26, 2008 11:09 AM

I am willing to contribute to the Extreme Sports for Mark Helprin fund, so that he can get his kicks in the (personally-dangerous but globally harmless) thrill of base-jumping rather than getting them by war-mongering.

Posted by Doodad | March 26, 2008 11:24 AM

Obligatory mention that Helprin is a very talented author, and complaint that he and Mark Halperin should have to do more to distinguish their names from each other.

Posted by washerdreyer | March 26, 2008 12:48 PM

Boots on the ground? Is Obama gonna invade Darfur?

Posted by Phil | March 26, 2008 1:43 PM

Boots on the ground? Is Obama gonna invade Darfur?

Posted by Phil | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM

There are war mongers who love war and who use protecting the innocent (or spreading democracy, or whatever) as an excuse to wage it. We've seen a lot of them lately. But that doesn't mean that there aren't situations where military force really can be used to humanitarian ends, and at tolerable cost to those who wield it. I don't know enough about Darfur to know the exact right course of action, and I can perfectly well believe that increasing the number of boots on the ground is the most important thing. But I can't understand why anyone would disagree with the proposition that, in the most extreme cases, it is a good idea to tell aggressors that they simply will not be allowed to do certain things.

Posted by David J. Balan | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM

As someone who spends a lot of time on Darfur related activism there are times that I want to throw my hands up in the air in frustration and yell about how we should bomb Khartoum. But I am told time and time again that this would be an incredibly destructive course of action and that there are more practical ways of ending the genocide in Darfur and bringing safety back to villages so that refugees in Chad can return.

In addition, Sudan has a fragile peace agreement between the North and South right now that needs tremendous attention. Yet Bush has done little to work on an "all Sudan solution" and it seems that the US diplomat to Sudan does not have phone line to the President which does not match Bush's promises around Darfur or his doctrine to spread democracy (but what does match Bush's doctrine to spread democracy successfully?). Here's a chance for Bush to actually have a good legacy on something...in fact, he played an instrumental role in making this peace agreement happen back in 2003...he needs to follow up on this. For the sake of his own legacy he needs to follow up on this.

Further, there must be robust diplomatic pressure on China to stop blocking important UN legislation and to ultimately put sanctions against the Sudanese government. All sponsors of the Olympics need to sign a statement expressing their concern with China's funding the genocide.

The UN Security Council needs to follow up on making being more aggressive with the indictments of two of the genocide's engineers in Sudan (http://wantedforwarcrimes.org). More money and resources need to be given to get UNAMID to be a viable force in Darfur. Diplomats need to be sent to Chad.

Bashir needs to be feeling heat from every direction. He has governed Sudan in a way that is 10,000 fold the viciousness of Marlo Stanfield. "The game" in the Wire is one that Bashir knows all too well...except his "game" is beyond the drug trade and it puts any thing going on in Baltimore to shame. And somehow Bashir has learned how to play everyone from Jimmy Carter to racist Islamic idealogues. The "game" of genocide needs to come to an end.

Fortunately, there is a mature movement of students and activists across the world who are applying pressure in the right places and advocating for realistic policy (the ENOUGH Project, STAND, GI NET, Investors Against Genocide, Dream for Darfur, Save Darfur, etc).

At this point, there is so much that needs to be done that is not being done. Bombing does not have to be one of those things nor does the current administration's policy of being insensitive to the fragility and volatile nature of many areas of the world.

In the mean time, I shall work and pray for peace in Darfur and an end to attacks on unarmed civilians forever.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 26, 2008 5:01 PM

As someone who spends a lot of time on Darfur related activism there are times that I want to throw my hands up in the air in frustration and yell about how we should bomb Khartoum. But I am told time and time again that this would be an incredibly destructive course of action and that there are more practical ways of ending the genocide in Darfur and bringing safety back to villages so that refugees in Chad can return.

In addition, Sudan has a fragile peace agreement between the North and South right now that needs tremendous attention. Yet Bush has done little to work on an "all Sudan solution" and it seems that the US diplomat to Sudan does not have phone line to the President which does not match Bush's promises around Darfur or his doctrine to spread democracy (but what does match Bush's doctrine to spread democracy successfully?). Here's a chance for Bush to actually have a good legacy on something...in fact, he played an instrumental role in making this peace agreement happen back in 2003...he needs to follow up on this. For the sake of his own legacy he needs to follow up on this.

Further, there must be robust diplomatic pressure on China to stop blocking important UN legislation and to ultimately put sanctions against the Sudanese government. All sponsors of the Olympics need to sign a statement expressing their concern with China's funding the genocide.

The UN Security Council needs to follow up on making being more aggressive with the indictments of two of the genocide's engineers in Sudan (http://wantedforwarcrimes.org). More money and resources need to be given to get UNAMID to be a viable force in Darfur. Diplomats need to be sent to Chad.

Bashir needs to be feeling heat from every direction. He has governed Sudan in a way that is 10,000 fold the viciousness of Marlo Stanfield. "The game" in the Wire is one that Bashir knows all too well...except his "game" is beyond the drug trade and it puts any thing going on in Baltimore to shame. And somehow Bashir has learned how to play everyone from Jimmy Carter to racist Islamic idealogues. The "game" of genocide needs to come to an end.

Fortunately, there is a mature movement of students and activists across the world who are applying pressure in the right places and advocating for realistic policy (the ENOUGH Project, STAND, GI NET, Investors Against Genocide, Dream for Darfur, Save Darfur, etc).

At this point, there is so much that needs to be done that is not being done. Bombing does not have to be one of those things nor does the current administration's policy of being insensitive to the fragility and volatile nature of many areas of the world.

In the mean time, I shall work and pray for peace in Darfur and an end to attacks on unarmed civilians forever.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 26, 2008 5:11 PM

I hate to say it, but I have a tough time getting worked up about Darfur. First, we had nothing to do with causing the crisis. Second, China is on Sudan's side, and the stakes don't seem high enough to risk a cold war with China over. Third, most of Africa is a hell hole, and yet you hear fewer 'activists' get worked up about the disaster in Zimbabwe, for example. It's as if they care more about Darfur because the rulers in Khartoum are of a slightly lighter skin tone than the ones they are killing in Darfur. Fourth, why don't the sub-Saharan Africans of Darfur, go back below the Sahara? Ethnic cleansing is awful, but it seems clear that the black-Arab tribesmen don't want them there. Why stay and get raped and killed?

Posted by Juan | March 26, 2008 7:29 PM

Juan:
1-The US has plenty to do with Darfur. We helped with the peace treaty that ignored Darfur and (unintentionally) helped create the stage for this genocide. We also belong to the United Nations which has committed itself to a doctrine of "responsibility to protect" (international law) and an international community that continues to say Never Again. So to start off, thanks for trying to be honest, but in some way, your comments are an insult to the brave people of Darfur as well as the memories of every genocide. Next, we are in the middle of fighting a war of ideas where we are trying to come off the good guys and have done hardly any thing about a genocide that we declared a genocide. We are not acting out of enlightened self interest by not acting. Next, we have declared the terrorist state that is Sudan, "partners in the war on terror." And have contributed to benefiting this horrific regime.

Your second point: the stakes are incredibly high unless you somehow think that the lives of millions of people are inferior to yours. And I don't buy this "world war" argument. China will pressure Sudan if there's enough pressure on them. This is not a matter of national pride for them, it's simply about money. We pressure the image that helps them get money, and they pressure Sudan. Not complicated really.

Your third point: Darfur is a particularly massive genocide. Arguably the first genocide of the twenty first century. Zimbabwe which has a terrible regime has not reached the level, to my understanding of Darfur by a long shot. You should have mentioned Congo and Uganda. And yes, there are a ton of activists that are working on Congo and Uganda. And where did you get off thinking Africa was a hellhole just because it has serious conflicts? What kind of dismissive and dangerous generalization is that? It does not at all qualitatively or even for that matter quantitatively evaluate the situation on the ground and the courage and bravery of millions and millions of people. Further, as Spencer Ackerman's article on Obama indicates: all of Africa is an important place for us to be focusing on right now out of enlightened self interest. There is, in fact, tremendous poverty and a huge population of young people. In an age where terrorist methods are spreading, this is a recipe for disaster. So all of Africa needs focus including Darfur.

Fouth: this may be your most ignorant point of all, if the ramifications of your other points weren't so dangerous. Why should people who live in a place deserve to live in a place they live? Why don't they just leave? That's your point? They aren't welcomed, so they should leave? I suppose the same is true for Jews in Germany. They should have packed their bags. They must have wanted to be sent to concentration camps. Why didn't they just go below the German border?

Juan, I try to be diplomatic with people when talking with them as I know you have to patient to win hearts and minds. So I'm sorry if I'm being a bit testy. But there are so many people like you out there with these opinions and sometimes I just get pretty darn angry. The only way I can currently sympathize with you is that I think we often out of emotional defense block out the most horrible things from our minds. I can understand that and hope that you can balance that out with some compassion.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 26, 2008 8:34 PM

Bernie,

China cares less what 'activists' think of it than it does about Sudan's oil. It's really not that complicated.

As for your analogy to the Jews in Germany, certainly they should have left rather than stayed and gotten killed. The problem in their case was that few countries would let them in. One would think that Chad or some other broke, bankrupt country would take in all the Darfurians in return for some relative pittance in foreign aid.

As for Spencer Ackerman's 'point' that we should care about Africa because it is full of poor people who might become terrorists, that's completely ignorant. If poverty caused terrorism, sub-Saharan African and Haiti would be exporting more terrorists than rich countries like Saudi Arabia. Obviously that's not the case. Terrorists who have struck in the West have been middle class and educated, for the most part, e.g., the 9/11 hijackers, the physician/car bombers in Britain, etc.

Finally, you can't seriously be arguing that Africa isn't, overall, a hell-hole. It has the worst government, the most poverty, the lowest life-expectancies, etc. of any continent.

Posted by Juan | March 26, 2008 8:45 PM

Juan: as for China not caring about activists...well you're right. China cares about the fact that Fidelity may end up being forced by activists to get rid of it's holdings in PetroChina and Sinopec, about Steven Spielberg's having been pressured by activists to step down as creative advisor to the Olympics and publicly humiliate them because of Darfur. China cares a lot.

I have many friends from all over Africa. Some of who have survived genocide. And still, they love the place they are from. Their homes are not hell holes! Have you been to any country in Africa?

And Chad is becoming increasingly unstable thanks to the genocide in Darfur.

Please care about Darfur. Why wouldn't you care about human beings? If you don't, it wouldn't be a ridiculous notion to say you are taking on the role of a genocide apologist.

Let me ask you a question Juan: if we can prevent genocide should we? In Nazi Germany? In Cambodia? In Armenia? In Rwanda? Or do you really just not care that much? Because it sounds to me like you think that people with few resources being systematically raped and killed are bringing that on themselves. It's a startling position. Ugh.

Posted by Bernie | March 26, 2008 9:48 PM

"Let me ask you a question Juan: if we can prevent genocide should we? In Nazi Germany? In Cambodia? In Armenia? In Rwanda?"

The problem is that once you're at the point of TRYING to prevent genocide, you have already failed.

I'd suggest being more concerned about how to prevent the rise of genocidal states and non-state actors in the first place.

And that, my friend, will cost trillions of dollars and generations of work worldwide. Which you are literally never going to get everybody to commit to.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 12:10 AM

I used the wrong term by saying "prevent." In some circles there are the four P's of genocide intervention (some say p): Prevention, Protection, Peace, and Punishment. Right now in Darfur, we need to focus on Protection, Peace, and Punishment. Prevention to a genocide that's already going on is a little late in the game. Though prevention work in the entire country of Sudan along with peace making is essential right now as the agreement between the north and the south is pretty tenuous.

As far as preventing genocide worldwide, I do not know what it will cost financially. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And we tend to find in situations of ethnic conflict and war (just as we found with the levees in New Orleans) that it's always better to investment a little bit of money before having to spend a ton of it. I this idea of it costing "trillions" is not at all accurate and there are already incredibly cost effective tools being advocated by the ENOUGH Project in the realm of genocide prevention and they are worth it.

Further, Spencer Ackerman's article on the Obama Doctrine shows how something like spreading dignity is the kind of cornerstones that we really need at this time. This crosses over so many disciplines at once that are economic, educational, and military like in their components and it does so under a non-imperialistic lens. Genocide prevention is part of such a framework.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 27, 2008 12:50 AM

Bernie,

Realistically, the best thing the rest of the world could do to improve the lot of Africans would be to recolonize its most dysfunctional countries.

Posted by Juan | March 27, 2008 1:10 AM

Juan and Hack are both right. So are you, Bernie, up to a point. But in the real world "tons of activists working on Congo and Uganda" seem to have had about as much impact on those situations as Stephen Spielberg is likely to on China. Which is to say, close to nothing substantive.

The fundamental problem here is the failure of the UN Security Council to adjust to the need for a post-Cold War international security architecture that can act effectively in cases of war of aggression, genocide, the proliferation and use of wmd's, state support for terrorism, etc. Iraq looked like it was going to provide the test case in 1991. After a good start, the first Bush Administration decided that it was too much trouble to win the war, and over the next twelve years things deteriorated disastrously.

At the point that a state with the record of Ba'athist Iraq can't be forced to meet its obligations under seventeen Chapter VII Resolutions (including the 1991 ceasefire) without people calling it "illegal", there is no functional international security architecture. The governments in places like Sudan, Congo, Uganda, and Zimbabwe will continue to carry on making their states quite literally hell-holes.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 27, 2008 5:50 AM

Robert: What about the Responsibility To Protect Doctrine? This was passed not too long ago and it seems has not been properly integrated yet into how the UN carries out projects. Regardless, this was a huge step in international law and protection against genocide. And referring to these nations or Africa as a whole, as "hell-holes" simply shows an inaccurate portrayal. Of course, there is nothing short of hellish when janjaweed militia go into a village and kill everyone.

But that's not the reality for all of Africa as Juan seems to want to generalize. In fact, I find great danger in putting Africa on a pedestal or degrading it to the barbarian status that Juan wants to do. Both have proven to be inaccurate portrayals of human beings and have been at the root of the kind of European imperialism that has set the stage for much of Africa today.

Further, there are other considerations, such as the looming impact that global warming caused by industrial nations will have over developing nations who did not cause this oncoming disaster. There is a responsibility here that Europeans and Americans too often shirk and find convenient to ignore. It's a responsibility that is multi-tier in nature and it's a responsibility that starts with our work in Darfur and ending the genocide.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 27, 2008 10:40 AM