Who Will Send Troops To Save Darfur?

By Evan Goldstein

Published August 11, 2006, issue of August 11, 2006.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Last week the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, proposed sending a 24,000-strong peacekeeping force to Darfur and called for international efforts to secure the Sudanese government’s consent to the plan. However, he knows full well that U.N. member states are unlikely to deploy troops to Sudan without the Sudanese government’s consent. The situation, in short, is this: unless the U.N. is willing to back military intervention into Darfur, the genocide will continue.

One need only look at what has happened to the peace agreement signed four months ago between the government and the Sudan Liberation Movement, the main rebel group in Darfur. The agreement provided the slightest ray of hope for the people of western Sudan, but its viability hinged on the deployment of a robust U.N. peacekeeping — and when needed, peacemaking — force.

After signing the accords, Sudanese government officials said they would drop their longstanding objection to such a U.N. force. Two days afterward, the government revised its position, saying only that the matter might be up for discussion — and that discussion is now already over.

In early June, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir vowed never to allow a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur. “This shall never take place,” al-Bashir told reporters. He characterized the very idea of an intervention force as some sort of imperial ruse: “These are colonial forces and we will not accept colonial forces coming into the country.”

Meanwhile the fighting continues, attacks on civilians and aid workers are escalating, and the humanitarian crisis has gone from dreadful to worse. Darfur’s ongoing tragedy highlights a fundamental contradiction at the heart of U.N. peacekeeping efforts: Forces are only deployed with the agreement of the government’s party to a conflict.

While this injunction ostensibly makes sense — violation of another state’s sovereignty is one of the most egregious acts under international law — it also accounts for the perversity of the present situation. The decision to take the necessary steps to end the genocide is left in the hands of the very perpetrators of the genocide.

This begs the question: Under what circumstances does a government forfeit the protections and privileges of sovereignty? Even more vexing: Who decides?

That the U.N. is the obvious and preferable choice to sanction and undertake a multilateral military intervention is obvious. That the U.N. has proven itself wholly inadequate at the task is equally obvious.

Without a standing army at his disposal, the U.N. secretary general can only wield the weapon of shame. But what happens when shame is not enough, and the murdering persists? In theory, the U.N. Security Council could make a collective decision to act. In reality, the divergent interests of member states almost always guarantee stalemate and inaction.

One way out of this sovereignty conundrum is to be found in the thinking of political theorist Michael Walzer. “Collective decisions to act may well exclude unilateral action,” he has argued, “but collective decisions not to act don’t have the same effect…. If there is no collective response, anyone can respond. If no one is acting, act.”

Local forces, international protest and diplomatic maneuvering — all have failed to end the genocide. It is finally time for a lucid reckoning: What do we owe strangers by virtue of our shared humanity? And if we agree that the killing fields of Darfur are an intolerable affront to human decency, do we then have a moral obligation to act?

The war in Iraq has generated a great deal of cynicism, both at home and abroad, about the United States assuming an interventionist stance toward grave humanitarian crises. A recent survey by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that a plurality of those polled agreed that “the United States should take care of the well-being of Americans and not get involved with other nations.”

While understandable, this is a troublesome sentiment — especially when coming from liberals, who have historically been proudly idealistic and committed to the internationalist principle of solidarity with the oppressed. More than troubling, it is tragic, because military intervention is precisely what is required to end the genocide in Darfur.

Evan Goldstein is a contributing editor at Moment Magazine and co-editor of the small-d Web site.






Find us on Facebook!
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • Former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror: “A cease-fire will mean that anytime Hamas wants to fight it can. Occupation of Gaza will bring longer-term quiet, but the price will be very high.” What do you think?
  • Should couples sign a pre-pregnancy contract, outlining how caring for the infant will be equally divided between the two parties involved? Just think of it as a ketubah for expectant parents:
  • Many #Israelis can't make it to bomb shelters in time. One of them is Amos Oz.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.