- Even having read and seen so much in recent years about China's economic growth and the success some there now enjoy, it still came as a bit of a shock to see the extremes of wealth and poverty there. Outside Xi'an, we visited a family that has lived in a cave for 5 generations. The next day, we were experiencing the enormous wealth and rapid pace of construction in Shanghai - a truly breathtaking contrast.
- Every Chinese I spoke with was more sober and cautious about China's future than I was. they see the enormous challenges that lie ahead and understand how China still has so far to go to become a major economic power on a scale with the US. Per capita, they are right. And China has enormous challenges ahead - educating the masses, improving healthcare and other infrastructure, dealing with the rampant destruction of its environment, the growing poverty gap, unrest in the provinces, etc. But I couldn't help but be impressed by how every educated Chinese I spoke with saw this as a path China is on and that they get what they need to do on every level.
- The people we met in high-tech companies - Lenovo and Augmentum - were very impressive, young, and ambitious. They seem to be blending the best of Western/American business practices with the best China has to offer. They are great at graphic design and high-tech manufacturing. They still lack the innovation that is America's strength - but they know that and are trying to train/educate/empower the next generation to be innovators. How will that mesh with a still very authoritarian regime politically? Great question...
- There are so many opportunities for cooperation with China - alternate sources of energy, environmental protection, urban planning, etc. - that could help us economically and politically avoid seeing each other as threats only. It may well be inevitable that a rising China and the US will see each other as rivals - in Asia and globally - but that does not have to preclude finding areas of mutual interest and cooperation, too.
- We encountered no anti-Americanism. Quite the opposite - in spite of the Chinese government's nationalistic/China First rhetoric over the past years, we found everyone to be very inviting and friendly and eager to help us. Many Chinese tourists in Beijing wanted to take pictures with our students. People in the cities seem to embrace signs of American and Western businesses as evidence of the "international" character of those cities and new economic opportunities, not a cultural/economic invasion.
- The pollution is terrible - did not see a blue sky while I was there. It is tragic that they are destroying their country like they are.
- Traffic in Beijing is bad but not like the worst of Boston or NYC. But it will only get worse as they add so many more cars each day.
- I got the sense that many Chinese in the cities see China's rise as its reemergence. For thousands of years China was a great civilization. After a brief interlude, it is back! China as an advanced and great power is seen as China's normal state and destiny, not a new phenomenon. Shanghai is clearly on its way to becoming the commercial and financial center of Asia - and China is intent on making that happen.
- The poor farmers living in the cave are so disconnected from the "new" China. When asked about the economic changes and growth - with the nearby highway construction as evidence - one woman said, "It has nothing to do with us."
Monday, August 28, 2006
China reflections...
I may take weeks or months for me to fully digest the trip to China earlier this month. Some initial reactions:
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Bush on Darfur - Still too little, still too late...
President Bush is doing a great job of sounding concerned about Darfur without actually doing anything that will stop the genocide. On March 29, he said:
Clearly, the African Union force in incapable of stopping the bloodshed. Merely sticking UN blue helmets on the heads of the AU soldiers and giving them a NATO taxi service is unlikely to turn them into the peacemaking force they need to be. Bush's statement seemed to echo a recent NATO statement that virtually ruled out a NATO "bridging force" that would intervene until a capable UN force could be deployed.
Bush has much to gain by showing real leadership on Darfur. Understanding that his legacy will largely be determined by the long-term outcome in Iraq, that legacy could be significantly enhanced by a successful initiative that stops the genocide in Darfur.
After speaking with Eric Reeves the other day, it seems clear to me that what is needed is a clear goal - or set of goals - and the forces to accomplish those goals. Operationally, these goals might sound like:
- Seal the border with Chad so that refugees fleeing Darfur are not pursued across the border.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes in safety.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes and resume farming so that they might be able to feed themselves over the long-term.
Each of those goals would require a different force in terms of size and capabilities. Moreover, the duration of each mission would likely vary, perhaps considerably.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) suggests in a recent report that "monitoring" the Chad-Sudan border, protecting civilians, and enforcing a ceasefire could be done with 15,000 UN troops, provided the bulk of the troops comes from a militarily capable NATO member, like France.
Putting aside, for a moment, the legacy of French blue helmets in Bosnia (who allowed the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister under their protection to be executed by Serb forces, among other failings), President Bush's recent statement clearly falls short of endorsing even such a modest proposal from the ICG. Yet, in comparison to his fellow heads of state, Bush could be seen as leading the way on Darfur.
The question of French troops does, however, underscore the point that there are few countries with the military capabilities of intervening in a genocide like Darfur. As with Bosnia, however, the real question ultimately comes down to political will. Who has the political will to actually intervene and stop the genocide? Clearly President Bush does not. He's willing to call it a genocide and, possibly, give someone else a lift if they want to go stop it. But saying you'll support a UN mission without sending your own troops starts to sound like then-President Clinton hiding behind the failed UN mission in Bosnia. It is difficult to convince other countries to risk their troops if you're not willing to do the same. That does make it convenient, however, if what you ultimately want is an excuse for your failed diplomacy.
That's why, even though political "realities" in the the U.S., Sudan, and at the UN Security Council may render it moot, Bush has two options for getting other countries to step up to the plate:
- Bush could state publicly that he is willing to send U.S. troops as part of a NATO mission to stop the genocide. Then he could turn to other countries and ask them to join us in making this "sacrifice" in order to stop these crimes against humanity. In the end, U.S. troop participation might prove politically impossible, but he would have demonstrated that we are not interested in stopping a genocide only when others put their lives on the line. Or,
- Bush will need to engage in a diplomatic full-court press that involves lots of public and private diplomacy to secure a NATO mission - even if those NATO troops are wearing blue helmets - to stop the genocide. The U.S. likely will need to participate by providing logistics, intelligence, and airlift capability. But President Bush will need to act forcefully to make sure that our allies provide the troops necessary to make the ground forces credible and capable. In all likelihood, this means a NATO rapid reaction force between 5,000 and 15,000 troops that can respond quickly and decisively to any assault on civilians or gathering of militarily-significant forces. Without making a similar commitment for U.S. forces, Bush will need to bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear - something he has thus far been unwilling to do.
Those who truly support an end to the genocide in Darfur need to hold Bush accountable. Bush has been content to merely doing more than his counterparts. He "spoke out about genocide" - others have refused to use that term. But does calling for a UN force that is incapable of stopping the carnage demonstrate that he "meant it"?
Let's say what we want - clear goals, as I have outlined above - and understand what it will take to accomplish them. Until Bush stands behind that agenda - and is taking clear, concrete steps to accomplish those goals - let's all make it clear: he doesn't mean it.
I'm deeply worried about the human conditions in Darfur. Ours is a government
that spoke out about genocide, and we meant it. I thanked President
Obasanjo
for the AU presence in the Sudan. I told him, however, I did not think the
presence was robust enough. I do believe there needs to be
a blue helmeting
of not only the AU forces, but additional forces with a NATO overlay. And the
reason I believe that NATO ought to be a part of the operation is twofold:
One, to provide logistical and command and control and airlift capability, but
also to send a clear signal to parties involved that
the West is determined
to help a settlement -- to help affect in a settlement, that this is serious
business, that we're just not playing a diplomatic holding game, but that when
we say, genocide, we mean that the genocide needs to be stopped.
Clearly, the African Union force in incapable of stopping the bloodshed. Merely sticking UN blue helmets on the heads of the AU soldiers and giving them a NATO taxi service is unlikely to turn them into the peacemaking force they need to be. Bush's statement seemed to echo a recent NATO statement that virtually ruled out a NATO "bridging force" that would intervene until a capable UN force could be deployed.
Bush has much to gain by showing real leadership on Darfur. Understanding that his legacy will largely be determined by the long-term outcome in Iraq, that legacy could be significantly enhanced by a successful initiative that stops the genocide in Darfur.
After speaking with Eric Reeves the other day, it seems clear to me that what is needed is a clear goal - or set of goals - and the forces to accomplish those goals. Operationally, these goals might sound like:
- Seal the border with Chad so that refugees fleeing Darfur are not pursued across the border.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes in safety.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes and resume farming so that they might be able to feed themselves over the long-term.
Each of those goals would require a different force in terms of size and capabilities. Moreover, the duration of each mission would likely vary, perhaps considerably.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) suggests in a recent report that "monitoring" the Chad-Sudan border, protecting civilians, and enforcing a ceasefire could be done with 15,000 UN troops, provided the bulk of the troops comes from a militarily capable NATO member, like France.
Putting aside, for a moment, the legacy of French blue helmets in Bosnia (who allowed the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister under their protection to be executed by Serb forces, among other failings), President Bush's recent statement clearly falls short of endorsing even such a modest proposal from the ICG. Yet, in comparison to his fellow heads of state, Bush could be seen as leading the way on Darfur.
The question of French troops does, however, underscore the point that there are few countries with the military capabilities of intervening in a genocide like Darfur. As with Bosnia, however, the real question ultimately comes down to political will. Who has the political will to actually intervene and stop the genocide? Clearly President Bush does not. He's willing to call it a genocide and, possibly, give someone else a lift if they want to go stop it. But saying you'll support a UN mission without sending your own troops starts to sound like then-President Clinton hiding behind the failed UN mission in Bosnia. It is difficult to convince other countries to risk their troops if you're not willing to do the same. That does make it convenient, however, if what you ultimately want is an excuse for your failed diplomacy.
That's why, even though political "realities" in the the U.S., Sudan, and at the UN Security Council may render it moot, Bush has two options for getting other countries to step up to the plate:
- Bush could state publicly that he is willing to send U.S. troops as part of a NATO mission to stop the genocide. Then he could turn to other countries and ask them to join us in making this "sacrifice" in order to stop these crimes against humanity. In the end, U.S. troop participation might prove politically impossible, but he would have demonstrated that we are not interested in stopping a genocide only when others put their lives on the line. Or,
- Bush will need to engage in a diplomatic full-court press that involves lots of public and private diplomacy to secure a NATO mission - even if those NATO troops are wearing blue helmets - to stop the genocide. The U.S. likely will need to participate by providing logistics, intelligence, and airlift capability. But President Bush will need to act forcefully to make sure that our allies provide the troops necessary to make the ground forces credible and capable. In all likelihood, this means a NATO rapid reaction force between 5,000 and 15,000 troops that can respond quickly and decisively to any assault on civilians or gathering of militarily-significant forces. Without making a similar commitment for U.S. forces, Bush will need to bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear - something he has thus far been unwilling to do.
Those who truly support an end to the genocide in Darfur need to hold Bush accountable. Bush has been content to merely doing more than his counterparts. He "spoke out about genocide" - others have refused to use that term. But does calling for a UN force that is incapable of stopping the carnage demonstrate that he "meant it"?
Let's say what we want - clear goals, as I have outlined above - and understand what it will take to accomplish them. Until Bush stands behind that agenda - and is taking clear, concrete steps to accomplish those goals - let's all make it clear: he doesn't mean it.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
DARFUR: Bad news from NATO...
This from Reuters today:
This contradicts publlic statements made last week by NATO's Secretary General that suggested that NATO might well be prepared to provide troops for a UN mission in Darfur. The harsh reality is that the African Union - even with NATO transportation, logistical support, and other assistance is still unlikely to be able to mount a serious force that can significantly reduce the violence in Darfur any time soon.
Clearly a political solution is necessary for the long-term, and economic and political sanctions are, perhaps, the best tools available to compel the Sudanese government to cooperate in any such solution. But, in the meantime, someone needs to put some troops in Darfur to protect these people. If not NATO, then who will and who can? It is a matter of both political will and military capabilities. right now, NATO and the US have the capabilities but not the will...
Separately, NATO said it had agreed to a request by U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan to look at how it could provide support to troops there, but said
there was no question of it intervening on the ground.
"No one is discussing, planning or considering a NATO force on the ground in Darfur. That is not one of the options," NATO spokesman James Appathurai told a regular
briefing.
This contradicts publlic statements made last week by NATO's Secretary General that suggested that NATO might well be prepared to provide troops for a UN mission in Darfur. The harsh reality is that the African Union - even with NATO transportation, logistical support, and other assistance is still unlikely to be able to mount a serious force that can significantly reduce the violence in Darfur any time soon.
Clearly a political solution is necessary for the long-term, and economic and political sanctions are, perhaps, the best tools available to compel the Sudanese government to cooperate in any such solution. But, in the meantime, someone needs to put some troops in Darfur to protect these people. If not NATO, then who will and who can? It is a matter of both political will and military capabilities. right now, NATO and the US have the capabilities but not the will...
Monday, March 27, 2006
UN's idea of "quick" action...
The UN Security Council Friday put an April 24 deadline on the development of options for the UN in Darfur. So now we wait another month, while more people are killed and more women are raped. Another month for UN bureaucrats to "plan" a mission that has been discussed over and over again, a mission that should have been planned and implemented long ago. And once the options are fully developed, the Security Council will take them under consideration and more time will be needed for more diplomacy - diplomacy that so far has failed to secure even Egypt's support for a UN mission in Darfur! Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Administration cannot get Egypt - which has received well over $50 billion in US aid over the past thirty years! - to support a UN mission to save Muslims from genocide. Wonders never cease to amaze...
Don't get me wrong - the Bush Administration is making some effort to push the UN and possibly NATO toward a more robust intervention than the African Union can muster on its own. But if President Bush really wanted to make this happen, he would bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening.
And so we wait...
Don't get me wrong - the Bush Administration is making some effort to push the UN and possibly NATO toward a more robust intervention than the African Union can muster on its own. But if President Bush really wanted to make this happen, he would bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening.
And so we wait...
NY Times Sudan Supplement - Taking $$$ from Genocidal Regime!
Like many others, I got this e-mail from the Save Darfur Coalition today:
On Thursday we asked you and your fellow Darfur activists to write letters to the editor of the New York Times protesting their decision to take a million dollar advertisement from the Sudanese government - a government the paper's own reporting recognizes as genocidal.
Since Thursday, you and others have sent over 3,600 letters to the editor of the Times!
Yet amazingly, the Times has not run yet a single letter about their decision to profit off of a government that is systematically killing and displacing its own people - either objecting to or defending their decision!
The Times needs to hear from you today. Not only did they make the wrong decision by taking the Sudanese advertisement, but they have ignored all of your letters.
Can you email the New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, right now?His email address is public@nytimes.com.
The public editor is the readers' representative at the New York Times and is charged with responding to reader queries and complaints - and getting answers!
Email the public editor today. Let him know that you object to the Times' taking blood money from the Sudanese government to run an eight-page advertising insert and that you are shocked that despite the outcry, the New York Times has not run a single letter to the editor about it!
You can reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com.
If you hear back from the public editor, or you see your letter in print, please send us a copy at nytresponse@savedarfur.org.
Thank you,
DavRubenstein, Save Darfur Coalition
I sent the following to Mr. Calame at the Times tonight:
I am writing to express my concern that the New York Times, to which I subscribe and trust as the newspaper of record and integrity in this country, has yet to address its decision to accept money from the Sudanese government - which, as the Times has reported, supports if not orchestrates the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Indeed, the advertising supplement in last week's paper would have Times readers believe there is no genocide and that the violence in Sudan is over.
The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, reported this week that Harvard is divesting in a company doing business with Sudan:
A Harvard Corporation statement yesterday said the university was concerned with Sinopec's role in oil production in Sudan.
''Oil is a critical source of revenue and an asset of paramount strategic importance to the Sudanese government, which has been found to be complicit in what the US Congress and US State Department have termed 'genocide' in Darfur," the statement said.
I would have thought that the Times would reject any money from a regime sponsoring genocide.
Moreover, in spite of thousands of letters to the Times - like mine sent earlier this week - expressing outrage over this decision, no letters have been printed in the Times and no mention of the decision has been made in the paper.
Please do whatever is necessary to make sure that this issue is publicly addressed as soon as possible and that the Times makes a statement about its policies regarding accepting money from genocidal regimes.
Thank you for your prompt attention.-- Steve Walker
On Thursday we asked you and your fellow Darfur activists to write letters to the editor of the New York Times protesting their decision to take a million dollar advertisement from the Sudanese government - a government the paper's own reporting recognizes as genocidal.
Since Thursday, you and others have sent over 3,600 letters to the editor of the Times!
Yet amazingly, the Times has not run yet a single letter about their decision to profit off of a government that is systematically killing and displacing its own people - either objecting to or defending their decision!
The Times needs to hear from you today. Not only did they make the wrong decision by taking the Sudanese advertisement, but they have ignored all of your letters.
Can you email the New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, right now?His email address is public@nytimes.com.
The public editor is the readers' representative at the New York Times and is charged with responding to reader queries and complaints - and getting answers!
Email the public editor today. Let him know that you object to the Times' taking blood money from the Sudanese government to run an eight-page advertising insert and that you are shocked that despite the outcry, the New York Times has not run a single letter to the editor about it!
You can reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com.
If you hear back from the public editor, or you see your letter in print, please send us a copy at nytresponse@savedarfur.org.
Thank you,
DavRubenstein, Save Darfur Coalition
I sent the following to Mr. Calame at the Times tonight:
I am writing to express my concern that the New York Times, to which I subscribe and trust as the newspaper of record and integrity in this country, has yet to address its decision to accept money from the Sudanese government - which, as the Times has reported, supports if not orchestrates the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Indeed, the advertising supplement in last week's paper would have Times readers believe there is no genocide and that the violence in Sudan is over.
The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, reported this week that Harvard is divesting in a company doing business with Sudan:
A Harvard Corporation statement yesterday said the university was concerned with Sinopec's role in oil production in Sudan.
''Oil is a critical source of revenue and an asset of paramount strategic importance to the Sudanese government, which has been found to be complicit in what the US Congress and US State Department have termed 'genocide' in Darfur," the statement said.
I would have thought that the Times would reject any money from a regime sponsoring genocide.
Moreover, in spite of thousands of letters to the Times - like mine sent earlier this week - expressing outrage over this decision, no letters have been printed in the Times and no mention of the decision has been made in the paper.
Please do whatever is necessary to make sure that this issue is publicly addressed as soon as possible and that the Times makes a statement about its policies regarding accepting money from genocidal regimes.
Thank you for your prompt attention.-- Steve Walker
Sunday, March 26, 2006
More thoughts on the Darfur Action Agenda
While the advocacy campaign for Darfur clearly presents more challenges at first glance than the Bosnia campaign did, that should not be reason to abandon hope!
While George W. Bush is not complicity in the Darfur genocide in the same way Bill Clinton was complicit in Bosnia - Bush, after all, is not tying the victims' hands through an unjust and illegal arms embargo and is not pressuring the victims to surrender (when will Clinton answer for his complicity???) - he has made two statements that should commit him to further action. First, he apparently noted in the margins of a report on the Rwanda genocide, "Not on my watch." Does he want his legacy, which surely will be first and foremost determined by whatever happens in Iraq, to include yet another U.S. failure to stop a genocide? Second, his administration has actually called Darfur a genocide, thereby invoking the Genocide Convention and its commitment to prevent, stop, and punish genocides.
What is needed at this point?
1. People need to call their representatives in the US House of Representatives and demand that they publicly support and vote for H. Res. 723, which calls for the creation of a NATO bridging force in Darfur until a UN peacekeeping force can be fully deployed.
2. There must be a drumbeat of awareness-building activities on Darfur, at local and national levels. Nicholas Kristof has been virtually a one-man-show trying to create such a drumbeat, but there are signs of hope that the drumbeat can grow in volume and intensity. From Joey Cheek, the Olympic speedskater who donated his Olympic winnings to the Darfur cause, to Ann Curry's recent reporting from her trip with Kristof to the region, we're witnessing a spike in Darfur-related news coverage. The upcoming Rally to Stop Genocide on April 30 in DC is
another step in the right direction, provided it leads to more coordinated activities across the country, like candlelight vigils, lobbying campaigns, and speaking tours for Darfur activists and experts.
3. We need leading members of Congress - especially Republicans - to join the drumbeat, even though during an election year there may be limited incentives - and even some disincentives - to doing so. This may require some targeted lobbying and support activities, including the preparation of briefing materials and commissioning of experts to examine specific issues, including the military requirements for stopping the genocide and the possible diplomatic solutions that might provide a lasting solution once the carnage has been halted.
While George W. Bush is not complicity in the Darfur genocide in the same way Bill Clinton was complicit in Bosnia - Bush, after all, is not tying the victims' hands through an unjust and illegal arms embargo and is not pressuring the victims to surrender (when will Clinton answer for his complicity???) - he has made two statements that should commit him to further action. First, he apparently noted in the margins of a report on the Rwanda genocide, "Not on my watch." Does he want his legacy, which surely will be first and foremost determined by whatever happens in Iraq, to include yet another U.S. failure to stop a genocide? Second, his administration has actually called Darfur a genocide, thereby invoking the Genocide Convention and its commitment to prevent, stop, and punish genocides.
What is needed at this point?
1. People need to call their representatives in the US House of Representatives and demand that they publicly support and vote for H. Res. 723, which calls for the creation of a NATO bridging force in Darfur until a UN peacekeeping force can be fully deployed.
2. There must be a drumbeat of awareness-building activities on Darfur, at local and national levels. Nicholas Kristof has been virtually a one-man-show trying to create such a drumbeat, but there are signs of hope that the drumbeat can grow in volume and intensity. From Joey Cheek, the Olympic speedskater who donated his Olympic winnings to the Darfur cause, to Ann Curry's recent reporting from her trip with Kristof to the region, we're witnessing a spike in Darfur-related news coverage. The upcoming Rally to Stop Genocide on April 30 in DC is
another step in the right direction, provided it leads to more coordinated activities across the country, like candlelight vigils, lobbying campaigns, and speaking tours for Darfur activists and experts.3. We need leading members of Congress - especially Republicans - to join the drumbeat, even though during an election year there may be limited incentives - and even some disincentives - to doing so. This may require some targeted lobbying and support activities, including the preparation of briefing materials and commissioning of experts to examine specific issues, including the military requirements for stopping the genocide and the possible diplomatic solutions that might provide a lasting solution once the carnage has been halted.
Looking for a Darfur Action Agenda...
Forging an action agenda for the campaign to stop the genocide in Bosnia was simple in comparison. When over 100 grassroots groups gathered in Washington, DC, in December, 1993, they formed the American Committee to Save Bosnia with an ambitious agenda, which included:
- US/NATO airstrikes to stop the shelling of civilians until the Bosnian government could defend itself.
- Lifting of the US arms embargo against Bosnia so that Bosnia could get weapons to defend itself.
- Punishment of the war criminals responsible for orchestrating the genocide.
- Preservation of Bosnia's territorial integrity (no partition along ethnic/religious lines).
The central goal was the lifting of the arms embargo. On one level, it seemed obvious and simple: let the Bosnians defend themselves and we won't have to send our troops to do it for them. The issue, however, was complicated because the UN Security Council had passed a resolution - at Milosevic's initial suggestion - placing an arms embargo on the whole of Yugoslavia prior to Bosnia's independence. Bosnia's independence and the Belgrade-led genocide had rendered the UN embargo moot with regard to Bosnia; every country has an inherent right to self defense, recognized by the UN Charter. But arguing that point sounded to many like legalistic mumbo-jumbo, as former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger complained to me on CNN's Crossfire in 1995. Many with more lobbying experience than I had (none at the time), including a former leading House Democrat supportive of the Bosnian cause, told me we were well-intentioned but naive to think that we could get Congress to lift the embargo.
Even so, in the summer of '95, we were able to get a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress to pass binding legislation lifting the US embargo. that incredible act of congressional leadership is part of what prompted Clinton, after vetoing the legislation while Congress was in recess, to launch the initiative that led to the Dayton Accords ending the Bosnian genocide.
In comparison, Darfur offers little of the clarity in terms of a clear action agenda or public support that Bosnia did at the time. Many Americans still had fond memories of the Sarajevo Olympics of 1984 and the warm and endearing Bosnians we saw on TV. We could watch some of the horrors of Bosnia on TV at night, though the so-called "CNN effect" cut both ways: it brought the war to our living rooms on a regular basis, but it numbed and confused us as often as it enraged us. The Bosnian government and army offered a proxy for US intervention - arm the Bosnians and our troops can stay home. Bosnia was in Europe, and the risk of a broader conflict involving NATO allies was a constant source of concern, as was the image of a slaughter in Europe just a short train ride from hundreds of thousands of US and NATO troops in Europe.
Darfur offers none of those "advantages" the Bosnian genocide offered those of us agitating for some kind of response. With the exception of Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, there has been little regular reporting from the region and few TV images. The apparent US quagmire in Iraq has soured many Americans who might have favored a military intervention in Darfur, either because they have little or no confidence in this administration's ability to carry it out successfully or they are concerned about the backlash from another US military mission in another Arab country.
Kristof, writing in the February 12 Times, offered this menu of options for President Bush:
Here are some grown-up steps Mr. Bush could take: He could enforce a no-fly zone to stop air attacks on civilians in Darfur, lobby Arab leaders to become involved, call President Hu Jintao and ask China to stop protecting Sudan, invite Darfur refugees to a photo op at the White House, attend a coming donor conference for Darfur, visit Darfur or the refugee camps next door in Chad, push France and other allies for a NATO bridging force to provide protection until United Nations troops arrive, offer to support the United Nations force with American military airlift and logistical support (though not ground troops, which would help Sudan's hard-liners by allowing them to claim that the United States was starting a new invasion of the Arab world), make a major speech about Darfur, and arrange for Colin Powell to be appointed a United Nations special envoy to seek peace among Darfur's tribal sheiks.
With a president obviously too distracted or apathetic to take action on his own, activists are left to seek support and leadership in Congress, just as we did during the Bosnia genocide. There is nothing, however, so "simple" as an arms embargo to lift with the passage of a law. Short of declaring war on Sudan, Congress cannot force President Bush to do anything on Kristof's list. Legislation has been proposed that calls for a NATO "bridging force" that would provide some relief to Darfur's victims until a UN peacekeeping force can be "fully deployed." H Res. 723, and its previously-approved Senate version, is not binding legislation - it would not compel President Bush to act.
Moreover, it remains unclear what a "fully deployed" UN force would need to look like or who would provide the troops. Various current and former UN officials have estimated anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 or more troops would be necessary to stop the genocide in Darfur. A serious analysis of what is needed - and who could provide those assets - is needed. NATO's Secretary General indicated on his trip to DC last week that NATO would stand ready to participate if asked. That will require some arm-twisting on Bush's part, at least to get France to sit passively by and not block such a deployment. Such a force would probably require US logistical, intelligence, and transportation assistance - but because of Iraq and the other concerns noted above, US ground troops would not likely be involved.
And that is the real problem. It is difficult to ask others to make sacrifices you cannot - or will not - make yourself. It requires real leadership. That's one of many things we seem to be running a deficit in these days...
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Ann Curry and Nicholas Kristof on Today
Click the title of this post for a good update on Darfur and discussion of the crisis, including the use of rape as a means of genocide. Kristoff has been amazing as, perhaps, the most vocal and eloquent advocate on Darfur. There also are other videos that Ann filed from the region:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
Darfur
After some time away from blogging, I'm going to give it another go. The spark for this new blogging is the ongoing genocide in Darfur, though I will feel free to blog about other subjects as they arise.
When I closed down the DC office - which housed the triple-headed American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council for Peace in the Balkans/Balkan Institute operation - in 1998, I built a fairly high wall between me and that experience. My work on Bosnia and the Balkans had become an obsession, and I had been willing to make virtually any sacrifice during those years. I needed some distance and perspective if I was to be able to build a new life and career in New York.
As the Darfur genocide evolved, I kept an emotional distance from it, as well. I did not want to get sucked into another obsessive quest to stop a genocide. Thanks, largely to the passion and interest of my students, however, this is no longer possible. While my time and energy are limited because of my personal and professional obligations, I want to - need to - help address the genocide in Darfur.
I have not decided how best to engage, other than by supporting my students' efforts. I am open to suggestions. I guess my first hope is to find an existing organization that is playing the role the American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council did during the Bosnia genocide: to coordinate the awareness-building and lobbying efforts of organizations around the U.S. and to shape the common action agenda for that national campaign. Clearly, there are many organizations involved with the Darfur cause. Someone needs to make sure everyone is singing the same song, in the same key. Otherwise, it sounds like noise and nothing significant will be accomplished. But if that kind of coordination is provided, much is possible. Is there a single organization playing that role?
I would love to hear from anyone who can provide some insights as to which organizations are playing which roles so far, that would be great. I know there is a rally planned by some for the end of April - I am hoping to bring some students!
When I closed down the DC office - which housed the triple-headed American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council for Peace in the Balkans/Balkan Institute operation - in 1998, I built a fairly high wall between me and that experience. My work on Bosnia and the Balkans had become an obsession, and I had been willing to make virtually any sacrifice during those years. I needed some distance and perspective if I was to be able to build a new life and career in New York.
As the Darfur genocide evolved, I kept an emotional distance from it, as well. I did not want to get sucked into another obsessive quest to stop a genocide. Thanks, largely to the passion and interest of my students, however, this is no longer possible. While my time and energy are limited because of my personal and professional obligations, I want to - need to - help address the genocide in Darfur.
I have not decided how best to engage, other than by supporting my students' efforts. I am open to suggestions. I guess my first hope is to find an existing organization that is playing the role the American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council did during the Bosnia genocide: to coordinate the awareness-building and lobbying efforts of organizations around the U.S. and to shape the common action agenda for that national campaign. Clearly, there are many organizations involved with the Darfur cause. Someone needs to make sure everyone is singing the same song, in the same key. Otherwise, it sounds like noise and nothing significant will be accomplished. But if that kind of coordination is provided, much is possible. Is there a single organization playing that role?
I would love to hear from anyone who can provide some insights as to which organizations are playing which roles so far, that would be great. I know there is a rally planned by some for the end of April - I am hoping to bring some students!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)