............Iraqi Redux anyone?
The following is an Op-Ed in the New York Times by David Brooks regarding the UN's action or in-action over the growing situation in Sudan.
And so we went the multilateral route.
Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.
And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.
Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.
We did everything basically right. The president was involved, the secretary of state was bold and clearheaded, the U.N. ambassador was eloquent, and the Congress was united. And, following the strictures of international law, we had the debate that, of course, is going to be the top priority while planes are bombing villages.
We had a discussion over whether the extermination of human beings in this instance is sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of genocide. For if it is, then the "competent organs of the United Nations" may be called in to take appropriate action, and you know how fearsome the competent organs may be when they may indeed be called.
The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.
For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.
But the multilateral process moved along in its dignified way. The U.N. general secretary was making preparations to set up a commission. Preliminary U.N. resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told they should stop - often in frosty tones. The world community - well skilled in the art of expressing disapproval, having expressed fusillades of disapproval over Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Iraq, etc. - expressed its disapproval.
And, meanwhile, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in Darfur.
There was even some talk of sending U.S. troops to stop the violence, which, of course, would have been a brutal act of oil-greedy unilateralist empire-building, and would have been protested by a million lovers of peace in the streets. Instead, the U.S. proposed a resolution threatening sanctions on Sudan, which began another round of communiqué-issuing.
The Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions would not be in the interests of humanity. The Chinese, whose oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto. And so began the great watering-down. Finally, a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to "consider" sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon.
The Security Council debate had all the decorous dullness you'd expect. The Algerian delegate had "profound concern." The Russian delegate pronounced the situation "complex." The Sudanese government was praised because the massacres are proceeding more slowly. The air was filled with nuanced obfuscations, technocratic jargon and the amoral blandness of multilateral deliberation.
The resolution passed, and it was a good day for alliance-nurturing and burden-sharing - for the burden of doing nothing was shared equally by all. And we are by now used to the pattern. Every time there is an ongoing atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages: (1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4) pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let this happen again.
The "never again" always comes. But still, we have all agreed, this sad cycle is better than having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go in "unilaterally" and do something. That would lack legitimacy! Strain alliances! Menace international law! Threaten the multilateral ideal!
It's a pity about the poor dead people in Darfur. Their numbers are still rising, at 6,000 to 10,000 a month.
For those around the world who belittle the U.S. and the coalition members for electing not to continue to follow the impotent, business as usual, rhetoric that is the UN's bread-and-butter with regards to Iraq (a dozen years worth of ineffectual debating, 17 UN resolutions, continuous radar lock-on's and surface to air launches against UK and US pilots in the no-fly zones, UN staff and security council members profiting in violation of the embargos, being a haven for terrorists, etc.) I would suggest they come out of the useful idiot mindfog and realize we are seeing a mirror image in Sudan that we saw with Iraq...and when the US & UK with other like minded nations decide to end the growing disaster in Sudan via military intervention...rumblings in quite politcal circles are slowly moving in this direction....will those out there belittle the actions again because the UN didnt give the 100% green-light again? 1.2 million people have become refugees...and the UN's political "band" played on.....between 6,000 to 10,000 people are being killed a month...and the Secretary-General requests a study on the genocide in Sudan....given the "speed" and "efficency" of the UN staff and a majority of it's members and thier perpencity to ignore the obvious...this study should conclude no sooner than 5 years. Russia's decision that sanctions wouldn't be in the interests of humanity and the issue complex (plus how would they legally sell all their military equipment if sanctions were in place...but they never cared bout them before....Iraq anyone?) seems almost laughable...China's threatened veto if a vote on sanctions were to go through is hollow as well ( might create a problem for their oil intrests in that region)....maybe if sanctions did pass...Kofi Annan could take an "official" visit to Khartoum and promise to ease them as he did several times with Iraq....I congradulate the Bush administration for going the "multilateral" UN route first....showing once more the UN is becoming more and more irrelevant in a crisis like Sudan...or say Iraq...
Will the U.S. and other allies decide to forgo the UN again and do whats needed to be done...I belive its more than likely...when they do it ...probably not until after the November elections, perhaps longer... but it will get done....and not take 12 years to decide its time...If the UN doesn't come together now on the Sudan crisis and its own internal problems.....then it truely has shown itself to be of practically no use at all....
Check out this link for more info on the current crisis....
Couchman.....
:::::End Trans:::::Link