Curzon brought up the film Hotel Rwanda in an earlier post on war crimes which led to quite a discussion in blogistan. In it, he recalls a scene where Rusesabagina tries to bribe the general in one last attempt to save himself, his family and the refugees. Desperate, he tells him the only thing that will scare him into action:
You are a marked man, sir”¦ You are on a list. The Americans have you on their list as a war criminal”¦ Are you stupid, General? How do you think these people operate? You sit here with five stars on your chest. Who do you think they are coming after?
Thomas Barnett has a related post up now on the Sudan:
He is right to dismiss the 7k African Union peacekeepers on the scene as mostly “an exercise in public relations.”Â? It allows Bush and Blair and everybody else to say they “want to do everything possible to help local peacekeepers take the lead.”Â?[...] My argument is that, until the U.S. military seeds the core of a SysAdmin capability within its ranks (primarily the Marines and the Army in the mode of my March Esquire story, politicians and diplomats the Core over will lack the imagination and will to venture into killing fields like Sudan.
And thus we are self-deterred. And thus the eminently preventable genocide continues.And personally, as a Catholic, I think that’s a mortal sin on our part, as in, the kind you go to hell for.
Meanwhile, the Chinese buy Sudanese oil at something like 2-3 times the market value, and that enables the Khartoum government to continue on this genocidal path.Me? I’d promise China all the Sudanese oil it wants at fair market value in exchange for a significant contingent of their ground troops for a SysAdmin intervention into the country. I’d even make their senior officers key players in the coalition command.
Seem smelly or naïve to you? Got any better ideas? Or shall we wait on UN “reform”Â??
Though Barnett and others may see moral reasons for going to the Sudan, should we be expected to jump up and intervene in every bad situation? Where would Dr. Barnett draw the line? Should the US outsource interventions to other parties like the Chinese in this case to foster international cooperation, global responsibility for other countries and to do good?
NOTE: Eddie, good friend of Coming Anarchy and blogger at Live from the FDNF closely follows the situation in the Sudan. For more information and regularly posting on it see his blog.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
IJ
April 6, 2006
1:19 pm
Concentrating on Sudan. The United States claims genocide is going on in Darfur, but is reluctant to intervene itself. Chirol asks if "we" should be expected to jump up and intervene in every bad situation. What about the international community in the form of the poorly funded African Union (promising African solutions to African problems)?
"The current round of peace talks is expected to achieve little. And there are indications that the African Union could backtrack over plans to replace its mission in Darfur with UN peacekeepers in September. Even if the US and the UK agree . . . China said on Tuesday that now was not the time to impose sanctions, and is likely to be backed by Qatar and Russia", reports the "press":http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3abd60c4-c50a-11da-b7c1-0000779e2340.html.
From an earlier post in this forum on R2P: "back in September 2005 at a UN summit, every member (including the Sudan!) signed an agreement on the so-called "responsibility to protect"Â? allowing foreign powers to intervene in a country if the national authorities fail to protect their population from things such as genocide."
What forum can be used to find out the circumstances that would cause nations to intervene - if funding could be removed as an obstacle?
Eddie
April 6, 2006
3:01 pm
Indeed Sudan is so emboldened by this utter failure of the system (combined with the craven inaction of America and other nations of interest) that it is now destablizing (in obvious preparation for an invasion and the demotion of Chad to a "proxy" of Sudan's interests) its neighbor Chad. (information on this can be found in the recent reports of Nick Kristof from Sudan and analysis by Eric Reeves and the ICG).
We're not only going to let a brutal killing spree continue (with the death toll edging ever closer to a million because of the bitter fruits of war and ethnic cleansing; namely famine and disease), but we're going to let a sovereign nation be overrun by another country. Does anyone in Washington or Europe care about this at all? Obviously not, given their pathetic responses to this crisis.
There are a great many options on the table for the US to consider, but because of misleadership in the Bush administration and Congress, none of them are likely to be explored or ever implemented.
moorethanthis
April 6, 2006
3:05 pm
The fact is, there are still no set rules for humanitarian intervention. Maybe we could have drawn up some in the post-Gulf War, post-Cold War period, but Clinton fudged the issue and Bush hasn't done any better - Iraq probably set back any kind of consensus by a long way. Barnett seems to be on to something - appealing to nations' self-interest in order to prompt intervention. As long as such deals don't fall apart in the aftermath, prompting more bloodshed, it might just work.
Eddie
April 6, 2006
3:12 pm
- a high-level envoy like Anthony Zinni, Wesley Clark or Howard Baker to lead a tribal peace push (a loya jirga? sp) which is the most realistic chance for peace in the region.
- setting up a no-fly zone with a small NATO deployment to Chad.
- Pres. Bush making a phone call to China's leaders and having a serious, overdue discussion about how America can help China meets its energy needs without destablizing sub-Saharan Africa and other key sectors in the "Gap".
alec
April 6, 2006
9:45 pm
lirelou
April 7, 2006
12:26 am
If the United Nations wish to enforce their myriad resolutions, let them raise an international marine corps which is funded by the membership and can operate independently, without having to call on the national militaries of member states for support or assistance.
IJ
April 7, 2006
8:08 am
When WW2 ended, the priority was to boost global trade. Where would the finance come from? Eventually the UN system (IMF) introduced the idea of paper gold (SDR's), distributed centrally.
Eddie
April 7, 2006
11:38 am
Its craven because you can't call it genocide (as Bush has on numerous occassions over the past two years, as well as lying repeatedly and saying he would do all he could) while it happening, then sit there and do next to nothing for years about it, while people die by the hundreds of thousands and the US image and influence in Africa falls by the wayside.
What is happening now in Sudan (and also Zimbabwe) is a new phenomona where Africans realize if you're a dictator or regime underneath the Chinese umbrella, you're untouchable. We're going to allow the Sudanese regime to destablize and overthrow another sovereign nation nary a peep from the US. What does that say about law and order in the 21st century in Africa and the state of our influence on what will be a strategically important continent now and in the future?
IJ
April 7, 2006
12:57 pm
Paper gold may play a big part in the future in funding UN priorities .
Eddie
April 7, 2006
2:11 pm
davesgonechina
April 7, 2006
10:39 pm
http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/cbj/
And it says the US is giving a paltry $100,000 in IMET (International Military Education and Training) to Sudan to "transform the SPLA from a guerilla to conventional military force and help ease its integration into the national army." And ICG says that under the new Comprehensive Peace Agreement, this is a good idea so that the SPLA and SSDF can join forces against the Lord's Resistance Army in the south. But we've also cut peacekeeping operations funds, eliminated the Food for Peace program and migration and refugee assistance aid (and give none to Chad, I might point out), according to the new budget requests.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4055&l=1
What's your take on all that?
Eddie
April 7, 2006
11:09 pm
Its another sterling example of the lack of action behind all the rhetoric of the administration and Congress. As well as a dangerous example of our missing long-term strategy for Africa.
What happens if Sudan's south votes for independence in 5 years? Will we be ready to handle the likely resulting conflict? Its been noted in numerous quarters that perhaps the US should vastly improve its relations with the SPLA and others in the South, both for the rich oil resources in the South and in case Sudan falls apart, they'll make our most natural ally in the failed state.
Also, no planning whatsoever for the likely "Darfur II" (or brutal Sudanese regime counter-insurgency plan IV) which is brewing in the rebellious Eastern Sudan, where a potent mix of religious fervor unseen in Darfur along with a more urban setting in some places could lead to a much higher death toll and far more bloodier fighting aNd killing.
Thanks for pointing this budget fiasco out.
A side note:
Offering logistics, training and intelligence to Africans uniting into a task force of sort with the purpose of eliminating the LRA would be a great way for the US to build mil-mil contacts throughout out that part of Africa, as most of the inhabitants and leaders of East Africa have had enough of Kony's madness.
davesgonechina
April 7, 2006
11:28 pm
If you read the section on Sudan (click reports by region: Africa, scroll down alphabetical), it has jack squat to say about Darfur, except
"Ensuring an end to the violence in Darfur, accountability for its perpetrators, and full implementation of the comprehensive North-South peace agreement without compromising Sudan's counter-terrorism cooperation are top priorities for the United States and the international community. Reconstruction and development in Sudan, particularly southern Sudan, are also high priorities that will need adequate support if implementation of the CPA is to be successful. Strong support of this process is necessary to promote stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout a unified Sudan. This will contribute to stability in the strategic Horn of Africa and send a clear, positive message to the people of the Middle East, Africa, and throughout the world that the most intractable of conflicts can be resolved through peaceful negotiation."
Can you say hot air? Meanwhile we gave millions for disaster, famine and refugees in 2005, but none in 2006 or 2007. Strong support for reconstruction and development apparently doesn't involve any dollars. The total budget for Sudan operations is around $200 million, while in FY 2005 it was nearly $600 million. I'm not saying we should just throw money at the problem, but "strong support"?
Eddie
April 7, 2006
11:46 pm
All we're achieving is ensuring that some refugees are going to die on a relatively full stomach. They're still waiting to die in the refugee camps and the villages, no weapons to defend themselves, nowhere to go, no one outside the region interested in their lives, and no hope for the future.
This is a waste of taxpayer dollars and an even more terrible waste of US potential and leadership.
davesgonechina
April 8, 2006
12:17 am
Eddie
April 8, 2006
12:34 am
In addition to the AU, US and UN, the EU has also done little over Darfur in the past two years. Nobody's hands are clean, but I continually knock the US because we called it (wrongly, and in a fit of domestic political consideration) a genocide, yet refuse to take any meaningful action to put a stop to it.
snow
April 9, 2006
5:00 pm
IJ
April 9, 2006
5:33 pm
Snow emphasises the key weakness in the UN's commitment to protect people (R2P) in Darfur. Enforcement of the commitment depends on the political will in the nation with the necessary power.
davesgonechina
April 10, 2006
1:52 am
Wondering if we "expect too much" sounds like smug self-satisfaction. US policy too often is blindly ignorant of the realities on the ground in any country. There's an article in the Arab English press right now comparing the US response to Hamas to our reaction to the Sandinistas. Nicaragua policy ain't exactly a string of successes, and the stance on Hamas seems to be a repeat. The New York Times says members of the administration are suddenly surprised that Russia is reasserting itself and has gone its own way on key issues like Iran, though I don't have to be a Russia expert like Condi Rice to tell you the Russians don't like playing second fiddle. And those aren't even the most obvious examples of a complete failure of HUMINT (which doesn't have to come from the CIA, there are more than enough PhDs and expats out there) to anticipate events. Iraq, for example. And let's not forget Haiti. Closest democratic neighbor, and what do we do? Block desperately needed aid for a decade and quite possibly encourage the coup of Aristede. Meanwhile the people of Haiti die.
To wonder what a democratic admin might have done seems a futile exercise; we can't replay history with a new team in office. What's done is done. But we could try an approach to democracy building that thinks in terms of populist politics. That's what we've seen in Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Palestine, Egypt, Haiti and increasingly Mexico. Yet we often end up backing out-of-touch elites and/or strongmen who are ousted by populist surges. "Expect too much"? We expect too little.
snow
April 10, 2006
5:34 am
As far as the water privatization scheme by the World Bank, I think water privatization is possibly a good idea, though the timing was probably not good in this case. And why should the US get involved in stopping such a thing? What did it have to do with the US?
As for Hamas, what would you have the US do? Head into talks? I don't think that's necessarily the best thing to do. That gives legitimacy to Hamas. Let Israel go ahead and deal with it, which is to cut Hamas off and seal off the Jewish state. Many people seem to think that the US should do more regarding the Israel-Palestine situation, but US can't impose solutions here. This is really something that the two sides have to solve themselves. I don't know what more the US could do than what clinton did before in bringing them both to the table and nearly getting an agreement signed, which Arafat bailed on at the last minute.
I am curious as to how the US might use populist techniques to win over people in many of the countries you list. After all, it was populism that put the enemies of the US in place in most of these places. How do you act populist when it goes against everything that the US represents, such as capitalism and free markets?
At the same time, I certainly agree that the US has made mistakes in backing some nasty strongmen and especially in being out of touch with the situation on the ground. This is a serious drawback that should be rectified, as I think the US should go all-out in terms of building their intelligence capabilities.
snow
April 10, 2006
6:16 am
davesgonechina
April 10, 2006
4:08 pm
By the way, I'd call him a leftist, a populist, or corrupt, but I fail to see how Hugo Chavez is a fascist - a much abused word that has nearly lost all meaning. And I fail to see how a US that increasingly panics over foreign ownership of oil, ports and other infrastructure can lecture Latin American countries on nationalizing oil, water, etc. How about leaving the nonsensical name-calling at home, and consider that the leftists in Latin America aren't the commies of the 50s, Chinese stooges or world conquering madmen? Chavez, for example, seems to have a pretty clear goal: a Latin American trading bloc, so that they have more leverage in international trade agreements and strengthen regional trade ties. Latin America doesn't have the logistical and financial network that, say, North America has, and they have a great deal of trouble building it when a British water company charges everyone across the board several more weeks wages for water. You talk of ideological opposition and fascism, which as far as I can tell is meaningless rhetoric. There is a time and a place for ideology; this is not one of them. Neoliberalism doesn't cut it in Latin America anymore; "Globalization and its Discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz has been a runaway bestseller in Brazil for years. Neoliberalism is considered a failed cookie cutter approach to Latin American economies, and yet we're shocked to hear that people don't buy the Washington Consensus anymore.
"Let Israel go ahead and deal with it, which is to cut Hamas off and seal off the Jewish state." Hang on, this is more than one issue. There's walling in Israel to prevent terrorist attack, and then there's facing up to the fact that democracy empowered our enemy. After all those years of complaining that Arafat couldn't rein in groups like Hamas, we now have Hamas itself (best candidate ever for stopping Hamas violence) to negotiate with... and our answer is not one word. The Palestinians, like plenty of populist voters, chose the radicals because they were sick of the status quo. To squeeze them economically and refuse dialogue will just get those same people to be angry at us, because they'll no longer think its their government maintaining a shitty status quo - they'll think its our fault. God, at least the fig leaf of diplomacy could be deployed. Or what about building more backchannels with Hamas before the election? There's a novel idea: build dialogue with all parties in a democracy, because you can't guarantee which one will win. Yet the US rarely does so. Then again, we've often tried to guarantee which one wins, sometimes in ways that might quaintly be called "unethical", and more often and accurately "unsuccessful".
snow
April 11, 2006
6:06 am
snow
April 11, 2006
7:42 am
The World Bank is a separate independent entity. Sure the US has plenty of influence here, but they can't just directly interfere with its operations. It's up to the management of the World Bank to determine if a project is feasible.
"As for water privatization being a good thing, how would you feel if the water you drank every day was in the hands of a foreign government?"
What foreign government owns the water? Bechtel is a corporation, and they don't own the water, they own the service provider, just as oil companies do. Nationalization is not the answer. Nationalized companies often suffer from inefficiency, opaqueness in operations and finances, strong political manipulation and what's more, the money rarely makes it to those it's supposedly been privatized to help. I think privatization is possibly a good option, if and when the timing is right, and if it's done right. It is probably not good timing these days in SA.
"And I fail to see how a US that increasingly panics over foreign ownership of oil, ports and other infrastructure can lecture Latin American countries on nationalizing oil, water, etc."
The US panics because of who buys these things. SA countries may have concerns about strategic control over resources too, but rather than nationalizing, they could make good deals with 'safe' countries, such as Denmark, for example. Again, nationalization is a terrible solution that often causes more problems than it solves.
snow
April 11, 2006
7:46 am
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Hutu Impotence
April 11, 2006
9:35 am
davesgonechina
April 11, 2006
8:14 pm
Yes, the World Bank is a separate entity. But the reigning mode of thinking from the World Bank has been that neoliberal reform is the only way to go, and that thinking dominates US Latin America policy as well. The problem is that most of Latin America seems to have lost all patience with neoliberal economics, and with good reason. There are numerous examples where the World Bank, in tandem with US policy, has pushed for the privatization of industries that has caused drastic economic shock, like the water issue in Bolivia. That shock in turn powers a populist surge. As for who owns the water, I fail to see how owning the service provider, and therefore access and distribution, is any less concerning to that owning the actual water. Also, I'm not entirely sure, but my understanding of Bolivia's oil and gas contracts is that they give multinationals rights to reserves in the ground (I can't imagine an oil contract that doesn't), and I imagine a water contract could be easily written the same way. De facto ownership would seem to be a necessity. But if you have control of distribution and a local monopoly, which Bechtel had in places like Cochabamba, where water riots in 2000 galvanized populist movements that later backed Evo Morales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_of_2000
"The US panics because of who buys these things. SA countries may have concerns about strategic control over resources too, but rather than nationalizing, they could make good deals with "Ëœsafe' countries, such as Denmark, for example. Again, nationalization is a terrible solution that often causes more problems than it solves."
Here you're missing one of my critical points: Latin America doesn't subscribe to the same list of "safe" countries - in fact, the list of "dangerous" countries appears to be the US and co. The reason is precisely because they blame those countries who have pushed neoliberal policies, backed corrupt elites, gave loans with abyssmal interest rates and occasionally backed a death squad. Latin Americans overwhelmingly perceive these attributes as being stock in trade US policy, hence they don't trust us.
The other point I'd reiterate is that while in the US democracy means the people "get what they deserve, and get it good and hard". But there's a implied condescension that if the public of a Latin American country makes a stupid choice, they need to be reined in "for their own good". Meanwhile the American public is encouraged to make uninformed judgments on issues of foreign ownership and influence.
But the question I'd like most to hear you answer is how you determine Chavez to be "fascist". Rumsfeld compared him to Hitler, invoking "Godwin's Law": As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Nazi comparisons are generally considered a debate killer and for good reason. Fascist is also a debated term, the narrow definition being Mussolini, not Hitler, and the widest being a vague ad hominem attack (like Godwin's Law). So I wonder if you want to go with that word, and detail why, or perhaps choose other less contentious vocabulary.
snow
April 12, 2006
2:02 am
Well, davegonechina, you take issue with me calling Chavez a fascist. But I really just threw the word out off the top of my head. I think it was the only ad hominen attack I made and I didn't really think about it.
I also think that we can probably agree on some things, such as the need for much better intelligence and info on-the-ground in these coutries. Where we seem to differ is on the question of what the US should support. Neo-liberalism is not popular, but that doesn't mean they should support bad policies just because they are espoused by a populist, just to gain brownie points. They should support policies that will actually work and help the country in question. This might mean quiet or vocal support for such policies as Lula's micro-financing schemes and other ideas. But not nationalization, as it is a very bad idea that is the beginning of economic decline.
davesgonechina
April 12, 2006
2:43 am
I had a comment eaten as well, Snow. I feel your pain.
I know we agree on some things. I'm not saying nationalization is necessarily a good solution; but I am willing to say that neoliberal policies have been incredibly inefficient and unsuccessful, and often US policy has been perceived as hypocritical (I believe with good reason). But whether or not the US has been hypocritical is beside the point, because the reality is that a great deal of Latin America believes its true. The US has to address that.
davesgonechina
April 12, 2006
2:44 am
davesgonechina
April 12, 2006
2:53 am
Snow, the best way I think I can put it is to look at the National Security Archives at George Washington University. Read the declassified documents they have on Chile, Nicaragua, Peru, Brazil, El Salvador and Guatemala. Remember the events they describe, even if you feel they are overblown by partisan interests, are events the repercussions of which were felt by Latin American civilians. That plugs into how they vote and how they view US policy. There are alot of pissed off people, yet we never speak to them as if we acknowledge their beef with us. US policy in backing political figures or influencing the structure of development aid should take into account how we are perceived. Instead that history gets coopted by ideology - we were bringing democracy, so we were justified, goes one defense for things like the Iran/Contra affair. That may justify our actions for ourselves, but it absolutely does not let bygones be bygones with, say, Nicaragua. We have to try walking in their shoes a bit more if the US is going to effectively influence South American societies.
davesgonechina
April 12, 2006
3:01 am
Eddie
April 12, 2006
5:01 am
Why can't the Bush administration overcome Sudan's obstructionism and deliver on Mr. Bush's talk of a serious peacekeeping force? It's partly that Sudan has plenty of diplomatic cover: within the African Union, from alleged U.S. allies such as Egypt; within the United Nations, from China, whose president is due to visit Mr. Bush at the White House on April 20. It's partly that the Bush administration hasn't made it a top priority to strip that diplomatic cover away, a task that's complicated by the global wave of intense anti-Americanism.
But sometimes the administration's actions raise questions about how energetically it is trying to overcome these obstacles. Is it only weak and incompetent, or is it two-faced? Last week the United States sought to block the inclusion of Sudan's intelligence chief and other government officials from a list of people U.N. sanctions would target, feeding a theory that the administration is soft on Sudan because it wants Sudanese cooperation on counterterrorism intelligence. If this theory is wrong, the administration should explain why it opposes the use of sanctions to put pressure on Sudanese officials. Given Sudan's resistance to a peacekeeping force that could stop the genocide, isn't such pressure warranted?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041001535.html
snow
April 12, 2006
5:06 am
I can certainly agree with you on this one. I think they need to ramp up efforts in this area, along with intelligence and other information gathering. At the same time, I'm not sure that the US can ever win much sympathy in SA, unless they went all-out populist, which would mean the backing of many failed ideas. The US tends to get blamed for most failures, no matter how at fault it is. So I do agree that the US has to build support throughout the world, but I think it's limited as to how much they can ultimately build that support. That doesn't mean it's a lost cause, but that I think it's limited what can be achieved in this area.
At this time, I think the best that might be achieved is taking the edge off the hatred and quietly working for positive change in the region (and I don't mean coups or other nasty stuff but quiet support of good policies and practices).
There has to be a balance between working to improve the region while improving the US image and getting in bed with leftist populists who for the most part will make things worse for their people.
snow
April 12, 2006
6:56 am
davesgonechina
April 12, 2006
10:24 am
We've backed alot of failed ideas in South America that were neo-liberal (or at least labeled so), so I hardly see how we could do much worse. At least we don't offer dictators secret police switchboards anymore, like Operation Condor. There's another example of just how lovely our history in Latin America is. I disagree that abandoning our current ideological position might make things worse. I see nothing worth salvaging in our current posture.
snow
April 13, 2006
6:10 am