Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ending Darfur's Genocide
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Despite four years of international posturing and kvetching, the Sudan national government's genocidal war in Darfur continues.

As bloodbaths go, Khartoum's Darfur script is as common a sub-Saharan African orchestrated crime as it is deadly.

Darfur is a war of displacement. Sudanese Air Force bombers and Khartoum-backed horse- and jeep-mounted militias start the process of displacement by attacking defenseless villages and turning their residents into refugees. Yes, they kill a few people with their bombs and small arms, but the big killers in Darfur are exposure, starvation and disease.

Displace people from their homes, and they die from exposure to the elements. Separate farmers from their farms and food stocks, and they begin to starve. When people starve, they weaken -- and disease strikes more easily. Corpses turn up along the roads and trails. Refugee camps in the region overflow with those fortunate enough to survive the death march. Then the militias and bandits attack and loot the refugee camps.

That's the evil plan. And up to now it's worked, despite the peace agreement of May 2006 that supposedly brought Darfur rebels a means of reaching a political accommodation with Khartoum.

Oil and weapons are the main reasons that plan has been successful. In 2006, Sudan produced approximately 320,000 barrels a day. China bought 30 percent of that production; Japan 38 percent. Sudan also buys weapons from China. China wields a veto in the U.N. Security Council, and Sudan thought its oil sales and weapons purchases ensured a high degree of Chinese protection from U.N. threats to put a large peacekeeping force into Darfur. Khartoum regards delay as a victory. Delay long enough, and the rebels will either die or be driven off the land.

Three converging, long-term efforts are putting unexpected pressure on the Sudanese government, however. Individually, they are not decisive -- but in combination they are creating political and economic problems for Khartoum.

Sudan is losing the war of words and images.

In April, the United States and Great Britain accused Sudan of violating U.N. restrictions on weapons shipments into Darfur. Sudan was caught red-handed. U.N. photos leaked to the press showed Russian-made turboprop transports painted white and marked "UN." Sudan suffered a huge political setback -- a real information victory for the United Nations and Sudan's critics.

Another information campaign has created a "Chinese problem" for Sudan. Though Hollywood hand-wringing over social evil usually serves publicity-hungry stars more than the victims, it inevitably grabs headlines. In the case of Darfur, celebrity activists have hit a celebrity target: the 2008 Beijing Olympics. China values its Olympic opportunity, perhaps more than it needs Sudanese oil. Movie celebs advocate an Olympic boycott unless China supports a U.N. peacekeeping force and place diplomatic pressure on Khartoum. The celebs also advocate boycotts of private corporations and investors doing business with Sudan. Corporations are far more vulnerable to economic sanctions than sovereign governments.

A "South Sudan" political opportunity is emerging as a competitor but also an ally of Khartoum. That's a curious -- but a politically encouraging -- combination. Here's why: The 2005 peace agreement in South Sudan gave the south a high degree of autonomy. South Sudan has offered to broker negotiations between Darfur rebels and Khartoum. These negotiations are potentially a "win-win-win" political outcome for Khartoum, Darfur and the south, but Khartoum would have to offer Darfur an autonomy deal similar to that of South Sudan.

The third ongoing effort is the United Nations' "phased" peacekeeping plan. The plan is being implemented, slowly adding U.N. personnel and equipment to the outgunned African Union force currently in Darfur. The United Nations' ultimate goal is a "hybrid" peacekeeping operation, with a strike force manned by highly competent soldiers and supported by helicopters and aircraft providing the core of a larger multinational effort.

Khartoum calls the U.N. plan a "Western imperialist invasion." That means the Sudanese government fears its presence will halt the genocide.

These developments are not a recipe for instant peace. They do represent political, economic and military power being slowly brought to bear, with the intent of stopping mass murder.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
This is
just about the first time I have seen a column on TH with any substance. Congratulations to Austin Bay for talking about something important, and skipping the chance to blast liberals, which is not much more interesting or challenging than trying to figure out who the father of what's her name's baby is.

ctjaeger
Your short comment is to the point. I have noted that the libs and dems seem to want us to commit troops to conflicts which have no real US interest at stake. On the other hand when we confront and start overcoming terrorists that want to kill us they want us to stop and surrender.

civil war
I thought we weren't allowed to stop a civil war. Oh, wait, that's just in Iraq.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

ChosinMarineSon 11:30
Hit the nail directly on the head.I was gonna comment at length about how useless and corrupt the U.N. is.But I think he pretty much covered it.
Dont think he mentioned the 10s of millions the U.N. wants from me and you to remodel but it would take a book to list it all.

ctjaeger
You forgot to add the part about how our military intervention in Darfur would be in direct conflict with the popular liberal mantra of "we shouldn't be trying to referee a civil war" to your list. Other than that, well said.

I'm confused
Saddam and his sons tortured and killed thousands of people and "intervening" there is bad. In Sudan, a corrupt government is killing thousands of people and "intervening" there is good.

I'm just a little confused as to why the same people that demand we exit Iraq, now demand that we send troops to Darfur. I also haven't heard of any exit strategies or concrete plans guaranteeing (or even defining) "victory" in Darfur.

Is anyone able to explain why Bush is evil for going into Iraq, but wouldn't be evil for going into the Sudan? My head hurts, this is so confusing.

GOB
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe we can have Hollywood liberals fund E.O. since they "care" so much. It would probably cost less than one of their junk pictures, or at least as much as George Clooney's take per picture. Unfortunately you and I both know that if this was to happen E.O. would have to have embeds from all the Liberal media outlets. A rep from Human Rights Watch who will, well...watch to see that murderers rights are protected and to make sure the U.S. is blamed whenever an innocent is caught in the crossfire, Yadda,Yadda,Yadda. The biggest reason for doubting it will ever be an option is that they will WIN and we can't have that!

already said
So many have already said my thoughts on this. If we have to send troops to Darfur then we should also send some to New York and remove the UN. Anyone else notice that the so call religion of peace defecates in it's own bed on a regular basis?

ChosinMarineSon
Exactly. Executive Outcomes had a proven track-record in these types of campaigns, they would be a tremendous asset to introduce to the Darfur debacle. If only they hadn't been disbanded and outlawed by the SA government due to pressure from the always ineffectual UN back in `99.
Who knows, perhaps an exception could be made in this case if enough international support for mercs is brought to bear.

Good ol Boy
Yes you are right! The idea of a Merc force has been tried and was sucessfull in RWANDA! Thats right Rwanda. If I remember correctly the name of the Merc Org. was Executive Options. They were for the most part white South Africans and SAS who understood Africa, its politics, and best of all they knew how to win! Their tactics were simple. Wait in villages that were not yet attacked but were in the direct path of the Hutu killers. When the Hutu murderers showed up they wasted ALL of them, then moved on to the next likely village and did the same. The Hutus were confused at first, then terrified! Enter Bill Clinton, Madelene Albright, and of course the UN They could not have WHITE africaners killing BLACKS [Hutus] and winning no can't have that! Most of this is recollection on my part and I must defer to other TH members to clarify. If left to the UN this will be another slaughter. Ellison my friend, to you I say the following. I understand your heart is aching, who's isn't when innocents are slaughtered, starved and displaced. That being said evil men MUST be confronted and destroyed! They are not bound by the nicities or constraints of political correctness or useless UN resolutions. If you dont pay the butchers bill up front you will pay it later....with compounded interest.

RELIGION
Another example of what religion can do, in this case islam.

However, for all of you christians, pointing the finger at islam, let me remind you about rwanda and how Catholic priests were responsible for aiding and participating in genocide and how the catholic church helped these murderers escape the country to avoid persecution.

Liberal Hot Air
The situation in Darfur is terrible. Many liberals want the U.S. to do something about it -- as long as what we do is express our outrage in rhetoric. That will not save one life in Darfur, something liberals may even recognize but will not acknowledge.

I did disagree with Jerry Falwell from time to time -- don't tell Ann Coulter I said that. Jerry recognized that we live in an imperfect world, and he tried to make it not perfect, but better. Religious belief is about bringing our hearts, minds, and souls closer to the one Being who was & is Perfect. Politics is about making things better. We can't improve on our Creator & Savior. We can improve our society, mainly through our own behavior but also through the concerted action we call politics. I think most people of faith can make the distinction. If you'd like to share your thoughts on faith, politics, or anything else, please visit my site (click on name above). God bless the Falwell family and all those who loved him.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa

j koch
I would strongly disagree that Shawn's comment of no U.S. troops in Darfur is not well informed I do not agree with his statement "The world has spoken and said it doesn't want the U.S. to be the world's policeman." I am always hesitant when I hear "the world says". That being said, your statement "The UN is only as strong as its constituent parts, the permanent five of the security council, which includes the United States as largest military power need to agree, and supply funds and equipment the UN" is typical of believers in the UN. Why? so when confronted by janjaweed chewing punks they can throw their hands in the air and surrender all said equipment and run away, which is SOP for U.N. forces! The U.N.needs to get out of the military/security business and stick to doing the ONLY thing it does well, takig care of starving refugees. Leave war to war fighters.

Why should the U.S. give a penny to the U.N.? The UN has become a useless debating society that does nothing but fire off silly, toothless resolutions while the people they are supposed to be helping are murdered! Maybe the UN can start with paying back the city of NY the millions in parking tickets that the arrogant foriegn diplos feel is beneath them to pay. Why should the AMERICAN taxpayer fund this collection of tin pot third world dictators who are openly hostile to America's best interests? No, we don't need to send American or British troops to Darfur, we are a little busy right now doing jobs the UN won't do. Perhaps the UN can dispatch the vaunted EuroCorps, but then again they are probably busy with parade duty. The French have extensive experience in Africa maybe they can help.

The United States and like minded allies should remove themselves from the UN. They should then form a new alliance dedicated to actually doing something substanitive to solve world issues through ACTIONS and not idiotic resolutions written in limos going to and from five star resturants and cocktail parties! Also, Russian turbo props are large aircraft ranging in size from our C-130 and larger, with plenty of room for all kinds of goodies needed by practitioners of the "religon of Peace" to kill innocent civilians.

For BillK9
It's even starker.

The vast majority of the people of Darfur are also Muslims. So, the Darfur genocide is quite similar to 1971's "Operation Searchlight" (by Pakistan against its then-eastern wing, which separated as Bangladesh) in which 2.3 million of the 3.5 million total victims were Muslims (as were their killers).

To put it in context, I'll reinterate the words of India's first Law Minister about Islam--that it was "even worse than Hinduism" (on Hinduism, he stated that "its name should be INFAMY as it relegates entire groups of people as 'untouchable'; he became a Buddhist shortly before his death in 1956).

The alternative to direct intervention..
that no one is discussing is for the African Union to hire a large privet security force, aka mercenaries, to confront the militants.
I know that it's an unconventional idea, but no one seems to want to commit their own troops to the fight, and something definitely needs to be done. Besides, there is precedent for such an action: 1995 Sierra Leone.
Anyway, that's just my humble suggestion.

Same war different front
One writer is correct the Sudan problem is just another theater in the world war with radical Islamists.

While at least a few celebraties have enough sense so as not to be totally hypocritical most of the Hollywood, New York and Washington Leftist establishment has been deafeningly silent on the Sudan issue compared to its magnitude. Yet why do should we expect more out them. They refused to believe Stalin starved and murder millions in the 1930s. They refused to believe Mao would starve "his own people", not once but twice. They even pushed for recognition of the Pol Pot government in Cambodia. They refuse to accept any responsibility for abandoning the South Vietnamese to be murdered by communists in 1975. Just like they will blame everybody but themselves if they force us to leave Iraq too soon and it turns into a blood bath and a new strong hold for Islamic militants, Shiite and Shia. One where this very dangerous enemy can plot, plan and train for the next big attack on the west. Our progressive friends will not even take responsibility for allowing Iran or North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons.

The truth, they can't handle the truth. If they can't blame some neoconservative conspiracy or something that Bush lied about then it certainly has nothing to do with them.

I hate to even remind myself of the Bill Clinton-Al Gore administration days, but remember that they were quite close to the Chinese government. So to imagine for a second that they Democrats would do anything to deliberately anger China, no matter how good, honorable or important the cause, just doesn't seem possible.

Japan has always had only two choices relative to natural resources. They tried the "old choice" and lost badly. So now their approach is one of being nice even to the deteriment of those that have defended them since 1946.

Sudan
Chalk up another victory for the "religion of peace". When will Americans realize that radical IslamoFascism is the enemy?

The Hollywood leftists keep screaming that the US should send troops to Sudan to fight the rebels. No, African countries should send troops. It's in their own backyard.

The US should stay clear of this one. Let the UN and African countries deal with the Sudan and Darfur rebels. It'll be good practice for the real war to come after the American Socialist-Democrats abandon Iraq next year.


The 'UN is only as strong..as its parts'
And when members of the un, in the field, are ALLOWED to commit oil for food scandals and child rape scandals and NEVER face penalties/jail time from their countries of origin or the un - there will REMAIN a split in how the un is seen by the USA. And funds will remain LOCKED or slow in coming.

Does Darfur need ANOTHER pillager?
Does Gambella in Ethiopia?

We look to past deeds of the un in Bosnia and Kosovo and we don't like what we see. The un only ADDS to the horror.

Hell no, We won't Go!
Haven't we learned a thing from Kosova, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Massacre and murder make Muslims mirthful.

It is clear that only a massive military intervention is likely to change the Sudanese government's mind--but has anyone noticed that Sudan is roughly the size of the entire USA east of the Mississippi? And will the Arab and Muslim world's sit silently while "Crudsaders" beat up on one of their number?

By all means, be generous to the surviving Fur and accept refugees (we ought to be doing this with non-Muslim Iraqis); but no more of these nation-building misadventures. Candidate Dubya Bush was right; President Dubya Bush was wrong; and those who are now getting worked up about the next humanitarian disaster are even more wrong.

When will the people of Dafur come frist
Thank you Mr Bay for your article. I wasn't aware of the affair with the UN transports (trucks?)... but I'm not surprised.
Shawn, unfortunately your comment is not well-informed. The UN is only as strong as its constituent parts, the permanent five of the security council, which includes the United States as largest military power need to agree, and supply funds and equipment the UN. The UN does not have a standing army of its own. How do you think a phased deployment in Sudan will work when poor countries volunteer to supply troops but the big five refuse to foot the bill? It should come as no surprise to you then, that when the US does not wish to engage, the UN is weakened because money, time and resources are not spent on the organization. I find it horrendously short-sighted to treat the UN as single international actor. It is not.
Bill K9, I'm terribly sorry but to compare Somalia to Darfur is a non-sequitur! Besides, the armed opposition to Ethiopia and the TFG gains greater support from Somali nationalists and Islamists alike with every day the Ethiopian troops remain on Somali soil (says Tom Porteous, for example). Branding them all as terrorists (Islamists, to your mind) is inaccurate and misleading. It is precisely the US's war on terror that is fueling the conflict in Somalia.
Anyway, in Sudan its not about 'talking' its about putting human rights before petty, short-sighted militarism that will change the course of the war and its debilitating perception of the 'wests' inaction. Helping the people on the ground before playing out international policy on severely battered populace should be the policy here - the US has a chance to do this by investing the capital and resources for humanitarianism.

Sudan
This ongoing slaughter is just another example of
Islam and Sharia Law. Wherever it predominates there is human slaughter and death. Somalia is under the same scenario and The Islamists have stated there will be no peace there until it is an Islamic state. The West is stupid enough to believe that diallogue will help resolve problem with these murderers.

Said it before and I will say it again..
No U.S. forces in Darfur. The world has spoken and said it doesn't want the U.S. to be the world's policeman. The U.N. was created to keep the peace- so let's see them do it. The fact that the massacres have continued this long already confirms what I believe, the U.N. is a waste of time. However, we are already catching enough heat about the U.S. trying to "occupy" Muslim countries. Let the rest of the world enjoy trying to bring peace to a troubled muslim region.

Darfur is also a WW-3 front.
The Khartoum backed raiders are - guess what - radical Islamists. This is like Japan attacking the Philipines or Papua New Gunea in WWII. Same enemy we were fighting, just a differnt front. Philipines & PNG were our allies.
So are the Darfurians. Let's treat them like allies.
It's one war.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.