The Century's First Genocide: Who Cares? (Darfur)

[DrDeth]

@Lissa

The columnist who was talking about this very issue said that after Rwanda’s genocide, he talked to a senator who said that if only 100 people from each congressional district had contacted their representatives, something would have been done.

This says to me that the apathy of the average American is costing lives. .

What is the “something” that “should be done”? :rolleyes: :dubious:

If we can’t agree on that, it’s not apathy.

Now supposedly, the African Union is handling this, they think they can- so why not let them?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@DrDeth

Now supposedly, the African Union is handling this, they think they can- so why not let them?

1. Because they need the West’s financial and logistical help. Thankfully, they are getting it.

2. However, the AU is stretched. It will be difficult for them to field their planned ~7000 troops by September.

3. Sudan is the largest country in Africa. About 17,000 troops were needed to stabilize things in Sierra Leone, a country 35 times smaller, where a peace agreement was already in place. Admittedly, Darfur comprises less than 1/4 of Sudan.

4. So whether appropriate steps are being taken at the moment are unclear.

5. Nonetheless, methinks it is prudent to let our elected reps know that we’d prefer to avoid another Rwanda.

6. Another Rwanda:
   That was Senator Paul Simon (IL) who made that political assessment about the 100 letters. (Thanks Lissa.)

Human Rights Watch had pretty decent information gathering capacity at the time, but they lacked a solid grassroots base. NSC chief Anthony Lake told them, “If you want to make this move, you will have to change public opinion. You must make more noise.” The US stayed mostly in a listening mode. The French sent some 2500 troops. Perhaps one million died.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@grienspace

Does the Sudan have WMD?

Not to my knowledge. But they now have oil. Or rather, they think they have oil and drilling has commenced.

"The news has prompted some humanitarian experts to wonder whether oil could be guiding Khartoum’s actions in Darfur, where a scorched-earth policy against rebels’ communities has left tens of thousands dead and forced at least 2 million from their homes.

“There’s some speculation that one of the reasons that these land grabs are going on is to get the African tribes off the ground so they can be controlled by the government in Khartoum,” Ken Bacon, president of U.S. advocacy organisation Refugees International, told AlertNet."

In other news…

On Thursday (16 June), Kofi Annan appealed to Khartoum (that’s the capital of Sudan) to disarm the militias.

On Friday, during his trip in Rwanda, Wolfowitz dropped by at a panel discussing the 1994 genocide and denounced Darfur. (He also heard some angry questions about Iraq.)

Seasonal rains will soon complicate relief efforts.

And on Wednesday (15Jun) a US commission, headed by George Mitchell and Newt Gingrich urged “immediate steps” in Darfur. Their recommendations:[ul]
[li]Assemble an aid package for the African Union[/li][li]authorize and establish a no-fly zone over Darfur[/li][li]pass a new Security Council Resolution to provide a strong mandate to forces in the region,[/li][li]affirm the responsibility of every sovereign government to protect citizens from genocide[/li][/ul] “More broadly, the task force says governments engaging in genocide, mass killings or massive human rights violations should face sanctions including the cut off of all financial aid and diplomatic ties.”

Bolded part mine. Advocating sanctions appears to be a show of support for the Darfur Accountability Act, which GWBush has quietly opposed.

He is not alone. Egypt advised the world community not to press too hard on Khartoum over war crime issues.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Correction:
On Thursday, during his trip in Rwanda, Wolfowitz dropped by at a panel…