Calling inaction of "the international community" to stop "the ethnic cleansing, mass rape, and killings in Darfur" a "disgrace to our time" on Monday, the Financial Times of London said that "up to 10,000 are still dying every month." -- A month ago the UN Security Council agreed to refer the matter to the ICC, but it's true that there's something grotesque about responding to a crime in progress with legal proceedings. -- As the Financial Times editorial says, "The people of Darfur need protection now." -- Who should act? -- "There was a time when Tony Blair might have championed such intervention, as he did in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Mr. Blair (like George W. Bush) is now irrevocably tainted by Iraq. But the doctrine of humanitarian interventionism must be preserved. This is the moment for an untarnished leader to pick up its mantle," says the London paper. -- One grotesquerie of the Sudan situation that goes unmentioned by the Financial Times is rarely mentioned in the corporate press: the connection of oil development to the problems in Sudan. -- Oil in southern Sudan is now "the main objective and a principal cause" for the continuation of the 20-year civil war there, according to a November 2003 Human Rights Watch report, which states: "Oil now figures as an important remaining obstacle to a lasting peace and oil revenues have been used by the government to obtain weapons and ammunition that have enabled it to intensify the war and expand oil development. . . . Expansion of oil development has continued to be accompanied by the violent displacement of the agro-pastoral southern Nuer and Dinka people from their traditional lands atop the oilfields." -- Oil companies in Sudan are complicit in the atrocities. -- In 2000, Amnesty International also issued a report calling attention to "the link between the massive human rights violations by the security forces of the Government of Sudan and various government allied militias, and the oil operations by foreign companies." -- In fact, there is one allusion to oil in the Financial Times leader, for he that hath ears to hear: the mention of China. -- Michael T. Klare (who will be appearing in Seattle this Saturday in Seattle called Beyond Oil) wrote about a year ago: "Sudan, strategically located in the northeast corner of Africa, with access to the Red Sea, has become another factor in China's overseas energy plans. Shunned by the United States and other Western powers for its ties to radical Islamist movements, its egregious human rights record, and its brutal war against secessionist forces in the south, Sudan has had considerable difficulty attracting foreign partners for the development of its considerable oil reserves -- thus providing Chinese firms with an opening they could not find anywhere else. After Chevron abandoned its exploitation operations in the Bentiu region of the south, China stepped in and helped establish the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company to develop promising fields in the area. (CNPC [China National Petroleum Corporation] owns 40 percent of the consortium, Petronas of Malaysis 30 percent, the Canadian independent Arakis Energy 25 percent, and the Sudanese state firm Sudapet 5 percent.) . . . In no other country does China play such a prominent role in the energy field" (Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum [Metropolis Books, 2004], p. 171)....
Editorial Comment
DYING IN DARFUR
Financial Times (UK)
May 9, 2005
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c9a19f5a-c027-11d9-b376-00000e2511c8.html
The failure of the international community to halt the ethnic cleansing, mass rape, and killings in Darfur in western Sudan is a disgrace to our time. For two years the world stood by while Darfur burned. In place of action there was a grotesque debate over whether we should call it genocide.
A little over a month ago the United Nations Security Council finally agreed to refer Darfur to the International Criminal Court. This was an important breakthrough. But the promise of justice in the future is not enough. The people of Darfur need protection now.
While the origins of the conflict are complex, none deny the appalling scale of the suffering. Independent observers estimate 70,000 killed and another 130,000 dead from disease and malnutrition brought on by the conflict. Ethnic cleansing has abated only because it is largely complete. Some 2m people are homeless, many in camps where they continue to be terrorised by janjaweed militia allied to the government. Up to 10,000 are still dying every month.
News of the ICC referral has reached Darfur, challenging the culture of impunity. But there is a gulf emerging between the expectation of justice and its application. It will be at least a year, maybe two, before the ICC even issues its first indictments.
The distant deterence of the law must be reinforced by a new peacekeeping force on the ground. The 2,000 African Union monitors in Darfur have done what they can. But Darfur is the size of France: they are hopelessly overstretched. Ideally, the AU would muster the 10,000 troops needed. But AU capacity is limited. The world cannot restrict its response to what the AU can deliver. There is a desperate need for international peacekeepers to supplement the AU force, preferably under overall African command, backed by a UN mandate.
Sudan could resist; China might veto a new resolution. But China did not veto the ICC referral. In extremis, the UN could stretch previous resolutions to justify a troop presence in Darfur. Providing the mandate is strictly even-handed, Khartoum would have more to lose from starting a fight.
The big danger is that intervention in Darfur will collapse the peace deal between Khartoum and the south. This is no small consideration. But the former enemies now find themselves sharing interests in the new status quo.
Intervention would threaten this settlement. So be it. Enduring peace for all Sudan cannot be built on a carve-up between two military dictators. Their accord must be implemented, but it should in time be superseded by a broader one bringing in the people of Darfur and restless east Sudan.
There was a time when Tony Blair might have championed such intervention, as he did in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Mr. Blair (like George W. Bush) is now irrevocably tainted by Iraq. But the doctrine of humanitarian interventionism must be preserved. This is the moment for an untarnished leader to pick up its mantle.
|
