I hate to admit this, but I don't really like it when the author of a
piece shows up here and then calls me out. Ahem. General Cake Eater
Disclaimer: no
one is actually supposed to read this thing and think that whatever I
might be spouting off about is actually worthy of their consideration.
Nine times out of ten, I might as well be smoking crack for all the
sense I make. Really, it's not worth your time to stop by.
In other words, I'm not frickin' Andrew Sullivan, fer chrissakes.
But it does happen. Last time was with the online editor of The Weekly Standard---a guy by the name of Jonathan Last, who was just on Dennis Miller
the other night, by the way. (Good job, Jonathan! Your caricature on
the Standard's website really doesn't look a thing like you.) This time
it's Andrew Morse about my commentary in this post.
He left a comment that's worthy enough to deserve a fresh post, because
in my usual big-mouthed way, I have a few things to add. We'll do it in
a line-by line sort of way, because I want to. Hi. I'm unenlightened Andrew. I am aware of the north-south situation in Sudan, and how it has effected the situation in Darfur. He leaves a link to this article he
wrote. First off, you're not unenlightened, I thought your commentary
was for the simple reason you did not mention the situation in the
south and how it was affecting the response in Darfur, and how it had
the capability of making it even worse. I can see now that I'm wrong. I
did troll the archives at Tech Central Station to see what else you'd
written, but that article didn't come up. For what it's worth, I'm
sorry, but there have been so many people chiming in on Darfur and on
Sudan, in general, that it's very hard to know who's honestly informed
and who's just been Googling madly. You didn't write one word about
southern secession and it was a bit stupefying. As a result, I lumped
you in with that group and I'm sorry for it.
That June article is very informative and explains things rather
nicely. It should be a must read for anyone who wants to throw their
two cents in on this topic. I am impressed by your coverage of the situation in Sudan, but
honestly do not understand your reverence for the bastard child of the
colonial era known as the state of Sudan.
Thank you, but Dear God, is that the impression you got? Yikes. To
clarify, I have no love or reverence for Bashir and his cronies. They
are Machiavellian in a way that would make even that most astute
political observer blush. I don't hold them up as an example for
prudent and fair leadership. They are representative of the precise
opposite. If their dealings with the south hadn't convinced me or
anyone of that, then Darfur would and should have. That said, however,
most of my conclusions about the worthiness of Darfurian secession, and
the general action currently required in Darfur, are based on the
simple premise that this man and his government will not be ejected
from power anytime soon. He's managed to not only stay in power, but
has managed to make large gains in the midst of a civil war and a
genocide. For better or ill, that says something about his
capabilities. He's there and he's simply not going anywhere. It could
be surmised that by simply dealing with him on Darfur, instead of
taking interventionist measures, Kofi Annan, the UN, and the United
States have added to his legitimacy and have propped him up. I don't
know whether that's the case or not, but Sudan is still on the Human
Rights Commission at the UN and the US still has a consulate in
Khartoum. Perhaps more important is how Bashir manages to keep the
international community out of his internal dealings. After all, he
managed to keep them out of the South for over twenty years. That in
itself is a somewhat amazing feat. Of course he was aided in this by
the western media's refusal/inability to cover the story, and the
general remoteness of the locations involved, but he made use of it.
This behavior lingers on and I would go so far as to make the case that
he's being helped with the genocide in Darfur by the refusal of
Security Council members to take an active role. Any resolution that
gets passed through the Security Council will be toothless, because the
sad fact of the matter is that the US hasn't the political capital to
move something more forceful through the Council. France, Russia and
China all have their own interests in getting the peace deal signed,
sealed and delivered. They have deals inked with Bashir's government:
it makes no sense that they would do anything that would tick off
Bashir right now, when they're finally on the verge of seeing results.
If there was ever a situation where you could honestly say, "No Blood
for Oil," it would be this one. However, no one, it seems, is willing
to attribute that sort of capricious greed to the French, and so we get
the "is or isn't it genocide?" arguments that make the floor of the UN
seem like high comedy.
I digress, but I think you get the point: while it would be preferable
for Bashir to go, I don't think he's moving from his spot, and he knows
how to work the international community to his own ends. He's in a very
strong position right now, and people are talking to him and his
government---not his opposition. While I'm not fond of Bashir and what
he's done to his country and can definitely see the benefit of removing
him from power but I simply cannot see it happening. This also affects
removing Darfur from Sudan, because he wouldn't allow for it. It's a
simple difference between the idealistic and the realistic. You posed the following, perhaps rhetorical, question, "And let's
be clear about the Sudanese Army's superiority: would the refugees have
run if they were armed? Are we now going to arm them to ensure that the
secession succeeds?†Well, yes. Though the American public has always
been wary of supporting foreign interventions, they have a historical
willingness to arm local resistance against totalitarian oppressors.
Is there a Darfur resistance group willing to take up this charge? Or
would it just be the SPLA/M that we would be arming, and who would be
organizing the resistance? If what I've read in the past is correct,
then they're in Darfur right now and are providing some little
resistance and protection for the refugees. Despite American claims to
the contrary, that "we will not have peace in the south on the backs of
those in Darfur," would that honestly be the case if the guns would be
going to the SPLA/M and those who decided to jump in? Wouldn't it then
be possible that, sometime in the near future, the situation could be
reversed? That there would again be war in the south on the backs of
those in Darfur? I'm leery of Garang and his cronies, much as you
pointed out in your June commentary, in that it's possible they would
use an instance of armed resistance in Darfur to further bolster their
own claims should the peace accords not prove effective enough in
practice. The last thing the people of Sudan need---in Darfur or the
south---is more fuel to the flames. It's a tricky situation, no doubt,
and I don't claim to be an expert on this sort of thing, but it appears
to me that arming those in Darfur would only be counterproductive in
the present, while more beneficial in the future? Question is, how many
eggs are we willing to break to make the omelette? And how successful
would the cookery be in the end? All of this, of course, makes the
assumption that the SPLA/M is actually in Darfur. What I read seems to
indicate this, but I don't know for sure and I could be making a whole
lot of hooey for nothing. As far as the American public being willing
to arm those who are willing to fight against totalitarian oppressors,
again, as far as Farfur is concerned, there is too much riding on the
deal in the south to allow such a thing. I'm speaking only in
generalities here, but the United States does not favor intervention of
any sort. They want to help, but they're not going to send troops, and
they're not going arm the people of Darfur. I simply cannot see that
sort of alternative being offered up on the floor of the House as a
solution to the problem. Again, the reality of the situation is such
that the US has very little political capital to expend on this issue
at the UN, and I do believe despite Colin Powell's visit and our strong
words to the contrary, there is not much we can do about it in reality.
When Sudanese refugees seek safety, why do they run to Chad?
Because Chad is a garden oasis surrounded by impenetrable defenses?
Because the reputation of the mighty Chadian armed forces intimidates
all who come near? Or perhaps there is a magical force-field on the
Chad-Sudan border? The reason why refugees feel safer in Chad is
because of an arbitrary, man-made, and man-malleable border. On one
side of the border you don't have to have to ask the permission of the
Sudanese government to help Sudanese citizens. Sudan’s power is
limited outside of its borders because other nations do have the
resources to stop Khartoum’s aggression, and will act if Khartoum
steps too far outside of its box.
So let’s consider moving the border if it will help to deliver the
resources that will end the suffering. Let’s allow the people of
western Sudan enter into formal alliances, buy their own weapons, and
regulate the crossing of their own borders without interference from
Khartoum. You are right, secession will not instantly fix the problems
in Darfur, but it will allow the process of deterrence to stabilize the
situation. Maybe the best we can hope for is a Darfur-Khartoum
relationship along the lines of the present Uganda-Sudan relationship,
but that would be a hell of a lot better than the situation now.
I agree with most of what you say here, but who is going to step up if
Khartoum steps too far? The US? The French? Some African peacekeeping
contingent? The mighty Chadian army? Nobody is going to get involved,
and if they do it will be in the most limited way possible. If the
border provides some sort of security for the refugees, it fails to
provide a barrier to the Janjaweed, who have crossed it in search of
people to kill. They've also been accompanied by Sudanese Army types.
Why the world doesn't see this as a violation of Chad's sovereign
rights when they're willing to respect Sudan's is beyond me. Which, to
my mind, also means that by erecting another border, another arbitrary
line in the proverbial sand and making a country out of Darfur, isn't
going to keep Bashir out. You argue that this would be a deterrent. I
think it would only provoke.
Finally, I think you have your cause and effect reversed when you
say "southern secession has been a major stumbling block in getting the
accords signed in the first place". That is like saying the major
stumbling block to an Israeli-Palestinian peace is the Israel's
insistence on its right to exist as a separate state
I think you misunderstood me. In a peace deal, most things are
negotiable and there are some things that aren't. Just ask Arafat: a
few years back, he had everything he wanted except for Jerusalem and he
walked away. There are dealbreakers. While you consider southern
secession to be one, it's just my opinion, but frankly, I'm very
surprised and pleased the referendum was included in the peace deal,
and not just left by the wayside completely to keep the north happy. It
easily could have been. If the US and others hadn't pushed for it, I
doubt it would have been on the table, and honestly, I'll be surprised
if the north actually lets the referendum happen six years from
whenever they get everything signed. To me, Bashir seems a bit too
pragmatic to let it all slip away without a fight. I hope I'm being
overly pessimistic.