NationStates Jolt Archive

West faces its real test in Sudan


THE officially sanctioned slaughter of an entire people in Sudan has elicited no more reaction from the British and US governments than a vague threat to suspend economic assistance and an offer to finance a "protection force" of 300 African soldiers to police killing fields the size of France.

As a result of this official indifference to the horrors in Darfur, the one remaining moral justification for the invasion of Iraq has been exposed as a sham.

It always seemed clear that the true motivation for the war on Iraq had little to do with weapons of mass destruction or United Nations resolutions. The best summary was offered by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman just before the invasion started.

There were three reasons, he said. First there was the official reason: to eliminate Iraq's WMD and keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Second, there was the real reason: after September 11, the US had to prove that nobody - especially not an Arab dictator -- could defy the world's sole superpower.

Finally, there was what Friedman called the "good reason": to create a prosperous, stable, pro-Western democracy in the Middle East that would act as a model for other Arab nations.

That taxonomy of the war aims was an excellent beginning, but it did not go far enough. There were less honourable reasons, which were nonetheless real, including the US's generalised thirst for revenge after September 11.

And there was another set of considerations that trumped the dishonourable motives, at least in the eyes of many principled supporters of the war. These were the "good" reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein.

The most important was the simple moral imperative that Saddam was a monster who had terrorised his own people and committed crimes against humanity comparable with the genocides in Serbia, Kosovo and Rwanda -- and perhaps even Cambodia and Nazi Germany before that.

The invasion of Iraq was not just about releasing the Iraqi people from Saddam's oppression. It was also supposed to create a precedent for a new global order, which would set a limit to the abuses that the civilised world was willing to tolerate.

Of course, it would never be possible to protect all oppressed peoples from tyrannical rulers. Disproportionate military losses would always rule out humanitarian interventions in North Korea, Pakistan or China.

But Saddam's overthrow was supposed to send a powerful signal to the second division of world dictators. The civilised world would not tolerate another Cambodia, Bosnia or Rwanda.

According to the new doctrine, the invasion of Iraq implied that the sanctity of sovereign borders would in future be conditional on observing a minimal level of human rights.

If a government defied all norms of civilised behaviour, its country could be justifiably invaded at any time. How futile such aims now appear.

The genocide in Sudan is at least as monstrous as any atrocity committed by Saddam. The Sudanese Government does not use chemical weapons, but burning homes with children trapped inside, throwing families into wells to poison the water with their corpses, or raping girls as their parents are forced to watch are surely as bad.

And nobody can maintain Sudan is too powerful to be threatened with punitive intervention. The Sudanese regime is a tottering wreck, which could be overthrown without excessive loss of life by international intervention.

Sudan is a failed state, a breeding ground for Muslim fanatics that once harboured Osama bin Laden, and a threat to its neighbours, with its fundamentalist poison seeping into Ethiopia, Chad, Somalia and beyond.

In Sudan, the US and Britain could act, but have chosen not to. Instead of acting on the new doctrine of humanitarian deterrence, they have demonstrated their pieties about human rights apply only to oil-rich states and white people.

If the atrocities in Sudan are allowed to continue, there will remain no shred of justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Far from deterring future bloodshed, Iraq will have sapped the will of the international community, discredited the UN and exposed the US's armed forces as a paper tiger.

If the genocide in Sudan is allowed to go unpunished, the only possible conclusion will be that the world is now even safer for despotic monsters than it was before the toppling of Saddam.

If so, the one remaining justification for the Iraq adventure will be exposed as just a dangerous fantasy - if not a hypocritical lie.

- The Times

We'd better not fail here as we did all over Africa before . . . otherwise screw the Western World

IMHO, if the Nations involved were Christian and white, the pointless slaughter of millions would carry far more weight in the Western world! This probably holds as true for Iraq as it does in Sudan. America is, as usual, out for Number 1. The Sudanese under attack are not only dark skinned and heathen, but they have no oil to offer us. Far be it to be concerned simply because genocide is wrong. Terror comes in many forms, but it is clear that the scope of our President's concern is limited. If God does, "continue to bless America", He is blind in one eye.
Blessed Be,
The Founder of Loving Balance

Iraq has been a sticky, reopened wound for the past two years. One idea I'd like to posit as having an influence on the American Iraq policy is America's relationship to Israel.

Al Sammoud missiles, which Saddam did possess upon the recent invasion, do not have the capability of reaching the US. They DO, however, have the ability to reach Tel Aviv. Regardless of Israel's WMD capabilities, even a conventional attack by Israel would result in horrid regional instability which would have a dramatic effect. Not the least of considerations is the fact that the whole of the global economy, not simply the US, would suffer if a full-scale middle eastern war were to disrupt petrochemical sources.

Everyone scoffs at the United States' foreign policy and its relationship to oil, but the fact remains that oil is an integral part of any industrialized nation's economy. No nation is truly altruistic, and to assume it is even possible is foolish. Political machines exist because the world is an unfriendly place, and cooperation only works if all parties agree on it. It only takes one rogue to bring the whole system down around our ears.

Principle is a luxury reserved for small states and academics. The truth things is that reality is far more Thomas Hobbes than it is UN Pipedream.

IMHO, if the Nations involved were Christian and white, the pointless slaughter of millions would carry far more weight in the Western world! This probably holds as true for Iraq as it does in Sudan. America is, as usual, out for Number 1. The Sudanese under attack are not only dark skinned and heathen, but they have no oil to offer us. Far be it to be concerned simply because genocide is wrong. Terror comes in many forms, but it is clear that the scope of our President's concern is limited. If God does, "continue to bless America", He is blind in one eye.
Blessed Be,
The Founder of Loving Balance

Did Somalia have oil? No. It seems to me you are under the impression that we have to get something out of the deal before the US or any other country will help. We sure as heck didn't get a thing when a UN force was sent into the balkans.

In Response:
Other Presidents have been better about protecting the interests of oppressed African populations. From what I could see, Clinton balanced ecconomics with compassion. Bush Senior also got involved in African politics to some degree. It is our incumbent leader that seems unable to be bothered unless either Arabs or oil are involved.
The Founder of Loving Balance

We'd better not fail here as we did all over Africa before . . . otherwise screw the Western World


It's not our job to pry enemies apart. If the arabs and blacks want to ruin their country by killing each other. Well all I can tell you is that's what diversity (Forcing people who hate each other to live in the same area) does to a nation.

Let's see...

Saddam and his regime senselessly slaughters hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children... gases the Kurds... we go in, America is one giant piece of shit.

Senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Sudan... we already know no one wants us in any foreign country and we'll be doubly hated if we do (plus we're already stretched pretty thin)... so we'll let the U.N. handle this one, which it isn't... and we're a giant piece of shit for NOT going into Sudan.

Damned if we do, Damned if we don't. So I say we don't.

Stuff it. The U.S. isn't the only country in the world who can intervene there. Personally, I'm glad we're not rushing in there. What the hell's the matter with all the other countrys with a military? If those people won't help themselves, the U.N. won't do a damn thing but talk, and every other country won't put their own people in there... they're screwed, too bad, so sad. We'll let the other countrys have their moment in the Sun, so feel free to go on over to Sudan if you like. No one's stopping you.

Just remember that if someday you're being slaughtered in your homes in your country... we don't want to be rude and seem like we're trying to butt into other peoples business. Feel free to defend yourselves or send your military into Sudan to intervene, no one's stopping you. Why should we do it ALL and still be hated for what we do?


...

It's not our job to pry enemies apart. If the arabs and blacks want to ruin their country by killing each other. Well all I can tell you is that's what diversity (Forcing people who hate each other to live in the same area) does to a nation.

I agree.

"Of course, it would never be possible to protect all oppressed peoples from tyrannical rulers."

Like you said, they need more than 300 troops. It costs money the US is wearing their budget thin already. Not saything this just has to be the reason, just thinking.

Plus with the troop losses in Iraq I'd be nervous about risking any more too.

Ok, so we know the US military isn't going into Sudan, we're too busy searching for oil, where the hell is the rest of the world. Just becuase the US isn't doing anything doesn't mean the rest of the world has suddenly got an excuse. Not acting in Sudan is not just shining the light on US intentions, it's showing the entire first world's interests.

Let's see...

Saddam and his regime senselessly slaughters hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children... gases the Kurds... we go in, America is one giant piece of shit.

Senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Sudan... we already know no one wants us in any foreign country and we'll be doubly hated if we do (plus we're already stretched pretty thin)... so we'll let the U.N. handle this one, which it isn't... and we're a giant piece of shit for NOT going into Sudan.

Damned if we do, Damned if we don't. So I say we don't.

Stuff it. The U.S. isn't the only country in the world who can intervene there. Personally, I'm glad we're not rushing in there. What the hell's the matter with all the other countrys with a military? If those people won't help themselves, the U.N. won't do a damn thing but talk, and every other country won't put their own people in there... they're screwed, too bad, so sad. We'll let the other countrys have their moment in the Sun, so feel free to go on over to Sudan if you like. No one's stopping you.

Just remember that if someday you're being slaughtered in your homes in your country... we don't want to be rude and seem like we're trying to butt into other peoples business. Feel free to defend yourselves or send your military into Sudan to intervene, no one's stopping you. Why should we do it ALL and still be hated for what we do?


...


Ah, but we already painted areselves in the "savior" light. We brag and brag about all the good we do in Iraq. We talk about how great we are for helping out Iraq. All the while our moral high ground sinks and sinks..

Well, we gave ourselves this role-now we either play it out, or live through the consequences of lying.

Ok, so we know the US military isn't going into Sudan, we're too busy searching for oil, where the hell is the rest of the world. Just becuase the US isn't doing anything doesn't mean the rest of the world has suddenly got an excuse. Not acting in Sudan is not just shining the light on US intentions, it's showing the entire first world's interests.

Oh please, you know Tony Blair wouldn't do anything Bush wouldn't do. He'd be too scared to upset his "master".

Even the US can't save the world, and yes, everyone that possesses a notochord realizes that any war is waged for "national interests" and little else.

Now I'm not blaming the US for anything. I like the people, but do not care much for the government.

As for Sudan, quite franky, I don't care. Maybe if they decided to help themselves first, I might take say the UN or whoever else can take action. But every time some county (like the US) does something, they take flak for it.

Oh please, you know Tony Blair wouldn't do anything Bush wouldn't do. He'd be too scared to upset his "master".

I have already lost faith in the US military doing anything in Africa, at least under Bush, and the British have come the closest to deploying troops but haven't. I was hoping the rest of the world might at least not be so self-centered.

Stuff it. The U.S. isn't the only country in the world who can intervene there. Personally, I'm glad we're not rushing in there. What the hell's the matter with all the other countrys with a military? If those people won't help themselves, the U.N. won't do a damn thing but talk, and every other country won't put their own people in there... they're screwed, too bad, so sad. We'll let the other countrys have their moment in the Sun, so feel free to go on over to Sudan if you like. No one's stopping you.

Just remember that if someday you're being slaughtered in your homes in your country... we don't want to be rude and seem like we're trying to butt into other peoples business. Feel free to defend yourselves or send your military into Sudan to intervene, no one's stopping you. Why should we do it ALL and still be hated for what we do?


...

I couldn't agree more. So does the rest of the world want the U.S. and the U.K. to use "uniliateral" military action or not? Because action is the only thing that is going to get anything done. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. and the U.K. have our hands tied enough already. We are not the only country in the world with a military you know?

We're obviously busy so in the meantime why doesn't anyone ask France, Russia, and Germany to send troops? The truth of the matter is that when the U.S. leads the world follows. Europe hates this, yet whenever we decide not to lead and work through the irrelevent UN, everyone else just sits around with their thumbs up their asses asking "why isn't the U.S. leading"?

Sudan is not the "real test" of the West. Our current policy is pre-emptively striking enemies before we allow threats to gather and materialize. Sudan is no threat to the U.S. This is the opportunity for the rest of the world to prove that they too care and are not just protecting tin pot dictators to cover up their shady oil dealings.

Second, there was the real reason: after September 11, the US had to prove that nobody - especially not an Arab dictator -- could defy the world's sole superpower.

Finally, there was what Friedman called the "good reason": to create a prosperous, stable, pro-Western democracy in the Middle East that would act as a model for other Arab nations.

Whats wrong with that? Thats exactly what we need if you ask me. A moderate Islamic, pro western democracy with around 14 major U.S. military bases is exactly what we need between places like Syria and Iran.

Iraq was just a "test run" on a strategy bent on preserving America's economic and military dominance of the world. China has been gearing up to invade Taiwan and as a response the U.S. has sent 7 Navy aircraft carrier battle groups to the east China sea, so someday we'll really gonna put America's fun new imperialism to use.

Whats wrong with that? Thats exactly what we need if you ask me. A moderate Islamic, pro western democracy with around 14 major U.S. military bases is exactly what we need between places like Syria and Iran.

Iraq was just a "test run" on a strategy bent on preserving America's economic and military dominance of the world. China has been gearing up to invade Taiwan and as a response the U.S. has sent 7 Navy aircraft carrier battle groups to the east China sea, so someday we'll really gonna put America's fun new imperialism to use.

We never deploy 7 aircraft carrier battlegroups to an area except under war, which we are not (in the true sense). Afaik, the Third and Seventh Fleets have between them 4 Carriers, and only one is deployed near China, at Yokosuka, Japan, the other three are at San Diego.

EDIT: It should say Seventh Fleet, not Fifth, the Fifth is the fleet based in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.

Its really not quite so straight forward an issue as certain elements in the media imply and i think you are all over simplifying things. The cuirrent Darfur conflict began when the Sudanese Liberation Army began attacking government targets NOT the other way around. The government support for the militias is a direct response to this. Furthermore, the case for intervention is complicated by the fact that Sudan has only recently settled its 30 year civil war between Northern and Southern groups and any military action against the Sudanese government will put this peace at risk. Lets also remember that military action will take at least 2 months to prepare logistically and will inevitably lead to criticism on imperialist grounds unless it is spearheaded by local militaries.

The Darfur crises is certainly a challenge for the international community but lets not ignore the context.

It's not our job to pry enemies apart. If the arabs and blacks want to ruin their country by killing each other. Well all I can tell you is that's what diversity (Forcing people who hate each other to live in the same area) does to a nation.

One more ppint, the 'Arabs' in Sudan are just as black as the 'blacks' that they are in conflict with. Use of the word arab in this instance is not referring to the ethnic arabs of the arabian peninsula. Arab literally means nomad and is used to describe some of the tribes in northern sudan that have lived traditionally nomadic lifestyles.