Plan B; or, How to Look Like You’re Doing Something about Genocide in Darfur Without Really Doing Anything at All
On Darfur, there seems to be nothing but impotence and disinterest at the top. To wit:
President Bush has approved a plan for the Treasury Department to aggressively block U.S. commercial bank transactions connected to the government of Sudan, including those involving oil revenues, if Khartoum continues to balk at efforts to bring peace to Sudan’s troubled Darfur region, government officials said yesterday.
The Treasury plan is part of a secret three-tiered package of coercive steps — labeled “Plan B” — that the administration has repeatedly threatened to unleash if Sudan continues to sponsor a campaign of terror that has left as many as 450,000 dead and 2.5 million homeless. But the administration has held back on any announcement of Plan B, even after setting a Jan. 1 deadline, in hopes of still winning Khartoum’s cooperation.
Apparently, “[s]ome aspects of Plan B have already been stealthily launched, such as stationing four U.S. Army colonels last month as observers on the Sudan-Chad border in full view of Sudanese intelligence,” but, given all the delays, not to mention the continuing procrastination in Khartoum, holding off international efforts and thereby enabling yet more genocide, there is justifiable skepticism that Plan B is anything more than hollow rhetoric supported by a few minor initiatives.
I suppose blocking these bank transactions is a positive step, but it will take far more to put an end to Sudan’s genocidal ambitions in Darfur — and this means not just international sanctions, since China likely wouldn’t agree to such sanctions, and not just U.N.-led peacekeeping efforts, which as in Rwanda would not have the authority to engage the perpetrators with force, but a military intervention with teeth, one that could engage the Janjaweed, the Khartoum-backed militia operting in Darfur, and crush it.
Bush’s Treasury-based effort goes back to Clinton, who initiated similar action in 1997, and this is one case where I do not necessarily question his sincerity — his concern, such as he is concerned, may very well be sincere, and he may very well be frustrated that little has been accomplished thus far. But how to explain the delays? How to explain that Plan B — a plan to “put pressure on Darfur rebel leaders — isn’t nearly enough, that such action as there has been thus far has been ineffectual? How to explain that Bush is still holding out hope, when there is no justification for it, that Khartoum will cooperate? In short, how to explain that the genocide continues even as Bush — and everyone else in a position to do something about the genocide — fiddles?
I can offer no explanations here other to conclude that Darfur just isn’t that important to the U.S. And I can’t just single out the U.S. It apparently isn’t all that important to anyone else either. Even the U.N., which talks repeatedly about breakthroughs with Khartoum that never quite seem to materialize, as if talking is doing, falls far short of acknowledging what must be done to put an end to the genocide. Peacekeeping won’t be enough — has no one learned the lessons of Rwanda?
And so more time is wasted and more people die. And all we have is Plan B.
Which won’t make a difference.
8 Responses to “Plan B; or, How to Look Like You’re Doing Something about Genocide in Darfur Without Really Doing Anything at All”
It would be easy to agree with you, if conditions were as straightforward as you present.
Re Darfir. the US is a nation non grata in a country such as Sudan. Our military presence anywhere in another Muslim country would elcit fierce resistance, and I’m sure it would be touted as another example of US aggression. It’s easy to see how this would elicit the interest and interference of Muslims from around the globe.
On an international level, there is a real problem with finding countries willing to get involved at any significant level. NATO keeps begging for more support in Afghan to no avail. There was supposed to be a beefing up of the African Union forces, but not too much has happened that I know of.
One problem is that the little civil wars are seldom put out qiickly, so that when going in, you have to think long term. Many find that daunting.
Europe, I think, is afraid of the unforseen consequences part of the deal, and after seeing what’s happening in Iraq, more so than ever.
Europe also is grappling with how to deal with theri Muslim population at home, and they are loathe to incite additional problems from that angle.
The counry that could help most, China, is interested only in economic benefits. Human rights issues are not high on their liist of concerns, at home or abroad.
The bottom line is that I totally agrre: we should not turn our backs on local conflicts, genocide or suffering. The world looks more and more like an insane assylum, with the most violent patients taking over the lead.
As soon as someone presents a workable plan, not just an idea, I’ll sign on.
Why is it our job to solve this? The UN doesn’t seem to have the will, the muscle, or the plan to get peace going in Darfur by itself. With Bush in charge we clearly won’t be able to put together a UN coalition on this, which means we’d have to go in solo. Again, with Bush in charge what are the chances that’s going to turn out for the best?
The US will not be in a position to help Darfur until our next president I’m afraid.
The dead children want to know why it’s NOT our job to solve it.
Here are some things you can do to help:
Visit the AJWS website
Visit the Save Darfur website.
Visit the Jewish Coalition for Sudan Relief website.
Donate to the AJWS Sudan Relief and Advocacy Fund.
Contact your members of Congress. Take action to increase funding for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid now. See how your senators and representative rate at http://www.darfurscores.org.
Keep Darfur in the news. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Tell him/her why the issue is important to you and your community.
In New York City, join the monthly Darfur vigils outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations. Urge the U.S. to keep pushing for the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force to Darfur as soon as possible. Learn more.
Holly,
The problem with Darfur is that the positions taken by the American left on Darfur cannot be reconciled with the American Left position on Iraq.
If nothing else, people wanting to do something about Darfur should be screaming for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to start immediate congressional hearing to go over all of the data and options before any action is taken. That would probably cause something to happen and would not conflict with the Left’s previous statements about Iraq.
Last I checked there is like 208 nations or thereabouts on this planet.
Mabey one of them should step up to the plate.
Why does it always have to be the USA. Bill Clinton sent our troops into Somalia for these reasons and we came out with our tail between our legs.
No Im all for staying away from everything and letting the rest of the world solve these problems. But we all know Germany will rush troops over there really fast. Or France or Canada or Finland.
No Time for someone else to step up to the plate in my opinion.
“But we all know Germany will rush troops over there really fast.”
Our troops already are in the Balkans, Afghanistan, in Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, and some just came home from Kongo. Bad luck.
WEll Gray thats exactly my point. People seem to not realize how messed up this world is. If the world wants to do something about Darfur why is the first screams for the USA to go anywhere.
I just threw out several nations names in an attempt to emphasis my point that their are other Capable nations on this planet to make a differene in Darfur. Why does it always have to be America leading the charge against ill acts and then when things dont go perfectly we are castigated unmercifully.
However I would be equally surprised if any of those nations I listed Jumped up and ran to Darfur in an effort to stem the genocide going on over there.
WTH is Plan B anyway?