What is to be done in Darfur?

For those of you that do not know, Darfur is a region of western Sudan, home to millions. There is a conflict there in which the Janjaweed funded by the government in Sudan, are systematically targeting and eradicating ethnic groups like the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit. Estimated death tolls range from 50,000 to 450,000 however, most NGO's (Non Governmental Organizations) estimate 400,000 dead. The conflict has been described as both ethnic cleansing as well as genocide. While the United Nations has not gone so far as to call it genocide, President George W. Bush has.

Today, the government of Sudan does not wish for the United States or the United Nations to intervene there. Yet, Bush has called it genocide, and it is the obligation of nations to intervene when faced with blatent occurances of genocide. Many will then of course ask why the U.S. has not intervened? There are multiple factors that can be cited for the reasons that the U.S. has not interevened; the first being the obvious issue of racism and the possibility that a largely caucasion population could care less if a predominantly native african population is thoroughly destroying itself. The second possibility, is that the United States would love to come to the rescue of those innocents being slaughtered in Darfur, but that it simply cannot. Assuming that we are not the barbaric racists that have traditionally sullied much of American history, and that steps have been made to achieve generational thought reformation, we will assume the United States' inability to take action in Sudan is precisely the reason it has not.

The next question, why are we unable? The answer, Iraq. Whether or not one believes the war in Iraq is a good thing, the worst curse, or something inbetween, it is still a major reason for the prevention of American action elswhere. Some are worried about the potential for rising conflicts in Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, and rightfully so as the U.S. cannot afford to even engage militants in Sudan to save innocent lives, let alone challenge entire nations. This is the reason in part the world has seen emboldened leaders like Chavez and Ahmadinijad, not solely because of their reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, but also because of smaller regional power vaccumes in which the U.S. has not completely abandoned but clearly comprimised, most likely due to war efforts in Iraq (troops, eqiupment, billions of dollars, etc.).

The short-sighted quick fix which many blindly promote, is the removal of soldiers in Iraq to deploy elswhere. Others would institute a draft. While we are seeing troop reductions in Iraq which has been unconfirmed as to its relevance, the U.S. need not draft its citizens, nor abandon its efforts in Iraq. There are more options!

In foreign policy, power can be seen on multiple levels. The pursuit of national interests is the ultimate goal of U.S. foreign policy, as it should be. However, there comes a moment when a tradeoff must be made, that being between the national interest and the principles of a nation. The U.S. has historically abandoned principles, for power, prosperity, and peace. While all four are in the national interest, all four occuring at once throughout the spectrum of the American diplomatic scope is rare. Fortunately, there is a way for the United States to potentially promote its principles, for example rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in such a place as Darfur, while minimalizing the affects on its power, prosperity, and peace, possibly even boosting the affects in a positive way. There are limitless possibilites for the expansion of American "soft power" when it promotes its principles!

There is a catch though to saving Darfur, and that is that the U.S. cannot do it alone. In the years between the end of the Cold War and the second invasion of Iraq the world had seen what appeared to be a concerted effort by both the United States and its allies to approach international conflict using multilateralism. Multilateral action was seen in places such as Kosovo, Kuwait, and Afghanistan predeecing 9/11. The multilateral action of much of the world seemed to be working well, although there were still problems with the Iraqi government, they were isolated and contained for the most part. This not being quite good enough in a post-9/11 world for the U.S., compelled it into unilateral action in 2003. Any notions of a broad coalition are fantasy when it comes to boots on the ground and operational costs in Iraq.

So, the U.S. acted alone, justifiable in a post-9/11 world right? Justifiable or not, there are more than enough troops and able bodies to intervene in Darfur at a moments notice, and they are right across the pond. Russia and China cannot be relied on to take up such a cause in Darfur, but the Europeans should be expected to! However, European nations are sitting back and watching the difficult situation the U.S. is facing globally and like a kid on a playground "taking his ball and going home." Whatever it takes to compel the Europeans to pull their weight, the president needs to take that action, even if it is an action that makes his blood boil. Following American principles, and stopping the genocide, must supercede all facets of the ego. everyone knows the Europeans took it personal that the United States actied without them in general in Iraq. That is no reason for them to retreat from multilateral action elsewhere. Even if it takes an apology from president Bush to the allies, stating that the unilateral action the U.S. took in Iraq was wrong, and that it should have worked multilaterally (notice not saying that action in Iraq was wrong), it still must be done. Will it be humbling for Americans? Yes. Could it improve relations with our allies? Yes. Is multilateral action the best option anyway? Emphatically yes!

For genocide to occur in the first place is a great failure of the world and its hegemonic power the U.S. Yet, for genocide to continue when there are options not yet exhausted is a disgrace and a parade of cowardice in the face of what many consider to be evil.