Genocide in Sudan
Genocide in Sudan (updated Sept 1st, 10:32 PM EST)
Despite the rhetoric of nearly every governing body on the Earth, there are very few cases in which governments due the morally right thing simply because it is morally right. The current genocide in Sudan, much like that of Rwanda a decade ago, is no exception. Arab militias, supported by equipment and troops from the Arab federal government, have been massacring villages of ethnic blacks in Darfur, one of the poorest and least accessible regions of the world.
The genocide broke out when members of the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups pressured the government for rights comparable to those of Arabs. In response, the government organized Arab militias into the Janjaweed and targeted civilian populations (source).
Now, tens of thousands have been forced to leave cities and villages, while thousands of others are being slaughtered by Sudanese military and paramilitary groups. What is the US and UN doing? Well, compared to the façade of no involvement, quite a bit. USAID has said that about $200,000,000 should be spent in the area, the majority of that money paying for over 100,000 tons of food for around 2 million people. All that food must be airlifted, because Sudan hasn’t bothered to build or secure roads in the region. In addition, Sudanese officials are delaying those airlifts as much as possible (source).
So, it will cost 200 million to keep refugees alive, because Sudan is preventing relief supplies in addition to supporting the militias. That 200 million won’t get rid of the militias or Sudanese government, and it doesn’t include the cost of security forces in case Sudan’s officials get nastier.
The obvious paradox is: why is the US government planning 200 million in relief, when the entire problem is caused by Sudan’s government and can be ended in a week for very little cost? The answer: the US government does not want to offend Sudanese officials or jump into another conflict that could turn into Mogadishu 2. After all, we’ve gained plenty of experience by ignoring Cuba, Haiti, Rwanda, and a long list of other 3rd world nations. UN peacekeeping forces are impotent, because the best they can do is watch the genocide from a helicopter (regulations prevent peacekeeping forces from firing at militants unless the UN troops are shot at, no matter how many innocent civilians are being slaughtered a few yards away). And, as Mogadishu proved, the US can not allow a single soldier to get a paper cut.
The only real solution is to kill the militants and destroy the Sudanese army, so that further genocide is impossible. This would take only a few weeks or months, it would be a permanent solution, and it would be much cheaper than feeding refugees indefinitely. But, in this world of international bickering and disregard for death statistics (as long as none are American), nothing will be done, while hundreds of thousands may be slaughtered.
That’s the political side of Sudan, and the world’s reactions to tragedy. I severely doubt that anything will be done quickly enough to matter, even though this genocide has been brewing for over a year. The next time you hear someone praises the importance or virtues of the UN, mention Sudan and see how they react. When Kerry next claims that he can bring America’s “allies” into Iraq, wonder what he would do in Sudan, and ponder why he has completely ignored the issue. When Bush hails his own success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, hope that he will do something in Sudan during his next term.
update: news report. Koffi Annan wants to get as many as 3,000 UN troops involved, as well as perhaps 2,000 AU (African Union) troops. Currently, there are only 300 non-Sudanese troops in or around Darfur, most of whom are from Rwanda (which wants to prevent another genocide like its own) and Nigeria.
Despite the rhetoric of nearly every governing body on the Earth, there are very few cases in which governments due the morally right thing simply because it is morally right. The current genocide in Sudan, much like that of Rwanda a decade ago, is no exception. Arab militias, supported by equipment and troops from the Arab federal government, have been massacring villages of ethnic blacks in Darfur, one of the poorest and least accessible regions of the world.
The genocide broke out when members of the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups pressured the government for rights comparable to those of Arabs. In response, the government organized Arab militias into the Janjaweed and targeted civilian populations (source).
Now, tens of thousands have been forced to leave cities and villages, while thousands of others are being slaughtered by Sudanese military and paramilitary groups. What is the US and UN doing? Well, compared to the façade of no involvement, quite a bit. USAID has said that about $200,000,000 should be spent in the area, the majority of that money paying for over 100,000 tons of food for around 2 million people. All that food must be airlifted, because Sudan hasn’t bothered to build or secure roads in the region. In addition, Sudanese officials are delaying those airlifts as much as possible (source).
So, it will cost 200 million to keep refugees alive, because Sudan is preventing relief supplies in addition to supporting the militias. That 200 million won’t get rid of the militias or Sudanese government, and it doesn’t include the cost of security forces in case Sudan’s officials get nastier.
The obvious paradox is: why is the US government planning 200 million in relief, when the entire problem is caused by Sudan’s government and can be ended in a week for very little cost? The answer: the US government does not want to offend Sudanese officials or jump into another conflict that could turn into Mogadishu 2. After all, we’ve gained plenty of experience by ignoring Cuba, Haiti, Rwanda, and a long list of other 3rd world nations. UN peacekeeping forces are impotent, because the best they can do is watch the genocide from a helicopter (regulations prevent peacekeeping forces from firing at militants unless the UN troops are shot at, no matter how many innocent civilians are being slaughtered a few yards away). And, as Mogadishu proved, the US can not allow a single soldier to get a paper cut.
The only real solution is to kill the militants and destroy the Sudanese army, so that further genocide is impossible. This would take only a few weeks or months, it would be a permanent solution, and it would be much cheaper than feeding refugees indefinitely. But, in this world of international bickering and disregard for death statistics (as long as none are American), nothing will be done, while hundreds of thousands may be slaughtered.
That’s the political side of Sudan, and the world’s reactions to tragedy. I severely doubt that anything will be done quickly enough to matter, even though this genocide has been brewing for over a year. The next time you hear someone praises the importance or virtues of the UN, mention Sudan and see how they react. When Kerry next claims that he can bring America’s “allies” into Iraq, wonder what he would do in Sudan, and ponder why he has completely ignored the issue. When Bush hails his own success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, hope that he will do something in Sudan during his next term.
update: news report. Koffi Annan wants to get as many as 3,000 UN troops involved, as well as perhaps 2,000 AU (African Union) troops. Currently, there are only 300 non-Sudanese troops in or around Darfur, most of whom are from Rwanda (which wants to prevent another genocide like its own) and Nigeria.
posted by Chris at
9:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home