George W Bush when asked about Rwanda and the genocide that occured there commented that it would not happen on his watch. But he has failed to act on the crisis in Sudan. Another black mark against his name.

Er...sorry Mick...but what do you propose?

Economics? China is happily putting paid to any US aid that The Sudan might want or need, coupled with the rampant Arabism of The Sudanese government the US is simply not welcome. The same goes, and perhaps especially, for American "Soft Power"

Politics? See above.

Military force? What.... again? In a landlocked region of The Sudan it would be chaotic suicide for US troops. And tell us why US blood and treasure should again be expended on an adventure that will not be appreciated byy the vocal hand wringers of the West, unless it is an unqualified and preferably (and some how miraculously) un-bloody success?

Bush can make grand statements about Rwanda when it was Clinton who missed the boat there, but Clinton couldn't do anything: it was chaos and happened so fast and was so changeable that his hands were tied and re-tied.
 

Mick, thanks for starting up this topic, and John, thanks for your initial response.

Americans Against the Darfur Genocide believes there are concrete steps that the U.S. can take to help the people of Darfur that don't by themselves constitute any kind of U.S. unilateral intervention. I'm appending one such policy step -- the imposition of targeted Security Council sanctions against Khartoum's senior leaders -- in order to make my point a little clearer.

--

Reminder: Urge President Bush to lead the Security Council in imposing new targeted sanctions 

[Update: Here’s an action alert we first posted last week. We’re posting it again because it’s important that we get the White House to walk its talk: last week, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad stated that the U.S. was considering pushing for new Security Council sanctions against the Government of Sudan, in response to its continued obstruction of a desperately needed UN peacekeeping deployment to Darfur. This is all well and good, but we need action and not just talk from our leaders. So please, take the action below and ask your friends and family members to do the same. Thank you! -The AADG/OurPledge.org Team]

[A reminder from the San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition and the Genocide Intervention Network:]

Call 1-800-GENOCIDE (1-800-436-6243)
Tell President Bush: Lead the UN Security Council in Imposing Targeted Sanctions

What to say:
Urge President Bush to lead the UN Security Council in imposing targeted sanctions against senior Sudanese officials responsible for obstructing the deployment of peacekeeping forces to Darfur.

Why it is important:
American leadership was critical in authorizing a new peacekeeping mission for Darfur.  Now, however, the Khartoum regime is obstructing the deployment of that force.  In order for civilians to be effectively protected, the UNAMID force must be deployed as soon as possible.

Additional information:
Now that a new UN Security Council Resolution (1769) has been passed the international community must do everything in its power to ensure that troops are deployed. Recently, a senior UN official reported that obstructionism on the part of the government of Sudan is making UNAMID deployment almost impossible.  For three years the government of Sudan has blocked the deployment of troops because there was not international pressure to force its hand. In order for the international community to ensure that the peacekeeping mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 1769 is carried out quickly and effectively, multilateral pressure must be applied now.

@ourpledge

Thanks for that response, but here is the truth: the government in Khartoum doesn't care.

They don't care what the UN does or says, as they have repeatedly demonstrated over and over and over and over again. They know that the US has lost all credibility in the UN and the next administration won't be treated any differently. To the rest of the world -beyond the West- it's all much of a muchness. It's all "neo-imperialism".

Force, or the threat of force, is the only thing that held the Pax-Americana together and Iraq has put paid to that notion for not just Bush's administration, but all administrations until a successful war is fought and won. Some would argue what of economics and the undoubted might of the US economy? But like I said, China is happily undermining that throughout Africa and especially in Sudan. And the rise and/or re-emergence of Nationalistic, energy rich  Russia as an economy to reckon with is not helping.

All change requires "Boots on the ground", whether they are the clogs of revolutionaries, soldiers' boots, the sandals of aid workers, or the economics of Prada or Jimmy Choos, no one in Khartoum is (and this is where I came in) interested nor do they care. Not in the least little bit.
 

Hi John-

Thanks for your comment. I do agree with the sense of your statement "All change requires 'Boots on the ground'" -- that's why Americans Against the Darfur Genocide supports the use of military force to stop this genocide, with or without the consent of the Sudanese government. Check out this page to find out where AADG stands.

Best, Nikki



 

@ourpledge

I am truly very sorry, I hadn't realized that you were happy with "Aggressive liberalism"...or what has become known as "Neo-Conservatism" ...in which case I am all for it. But it is worth the thought that this is the thinking of the Neo-Cons in Washington and, sadly, it washed out.

I read the link you suggested and found this line: In addition, President Bush should fully support the International Criminal Court's current case on Darfur ...this really isn't going to fly so long as the US stays away from the ICC. I also found this Here, part of the reasoning behind the sanctions tactic is this: If we cut off the money supply of Sudan's leaders—if we block their commercial transactions and prevent them from doing business in the international marketplace—then they will be more likely to change their policies on Darfur. This too won't fly so long as China and Russia allow them to trade. This also applies to the US, so long as the US  continues their "special relationship" with the Saudis - a  major friend to the regime in Khartoum. The options presented on the AADG pages are just not realistic when the only true option left is overwhelming military might.

I believe that eventually we will, in The West, always have to "export" democracy and, at least basic, human rights. This was the case for the US and the UK 60 years ago in Germany and Japan and so it will always be.

The UN is a bust, because China and Russia will NEVER acquiesce, but then again, and why should we be surprised, economics aside, their own histories do not allow for tough action on repressive regimes. So, and like Iraq, it's going to require  semi-unilateral force from the US and its friends and allies and is the US ready for another round of that?
 

American leadership was critical in authorizing a new peacekeeping mission for Darfur.  Now, however, the Khartoum regime is obstructing the deployment of that force.  In order for civilians to be effectively protected, the UNAMID force must be deployed as soon as possible.

--------------------------------------

alexis

[url=http://www.alcoholaddiction.org/nevada]Nevada Alcohol Addiction Treatment[/url]

Thanks, alexisa, for your comment. I'd add that the the U.S. and the international community urgently need to take the lead in imposing targeted multilateral sanctions against the Government of Sudan's senior leaders -- we need to force the perpetrators to stop blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid within Sudan as well as the deployment of UN peacekeepers to Darfur.