Kevin Sullivan

The Conditional Hegemon

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

John Boonstra of UN Dispatch expresses his displeasure with American inaction in Darfur:

By failing to provide more robust support for UN peackeeping, to invest a deeper commitment in Sudan’s tortured peace processes, and to exert more concerted pressure on Sudan and its enablers, the U.S. has consistently watched opportunities for peace and protection in Darfur sail by. Faulting the UN for a slow-deploying and under-resourced peacekeeping mission is a bit like blaming one’s shadow. If the U.S. is going to cast stones at the UN, it would do well to remember that the UN is no more than its Member States, and that the U.S., with the huge amount of influence and funding that it brings to the world body, may well end up looking to itself, with a stone in its hands.

Yet President Bush continues to present this false dichotomy: unilateral U.S. military action, for which the American population largely has no stomach, versus a failed UN mission, which the U.S. can conveniently scapegoat for the continually deteriorating situation in Darfur. The media should call the administration out on this self-exculpatory tactic, and the U.S. should discard its smoke and mirrors and work honestly with the international community to achieve real, tangible progress in Darfur.

I can understand and appreciate Boonstra’s frustration over the lack of progress in Darfur.  But I think his critique is terribly unfair, for a whole plethora of reasons.  One, as I recently argued, it’s hard to condemn President Bush on Africa (if you want to debate the Middle East, well, there you have an argument).  President Bush had the guts to use the word “genocide” in reference to Darfur long before the blessed “international community” could bring itself to stomach the backlash from Arab states.  This issue only gained the steam it has today when the Bush administration began to address it.

Secondly, I am a little bit perturbed by this inconsistent rhetoric on American interventionism.  When calamity arises, it’s up to the United States to bear the brunt and the blame.  The U.S. has of course adapted and become good at dealing with this role, but it’s completely unfair of Boonstra to say that its invasion, evasion or bust.  The United Nations is indeed a reflection of its makeup, which is why it would be great if its absolutely disgraceful Human Rights Council would begin to take Darfur seriously.  It would also be helpful if the Arab League was convinced to take these matters seriously, rather than hosting their lavish annual summit in Khartoum; in stark defiance and indifference for the atrocities occurring directly under their noses.   

And then there’s China, perhaps one of the “enablers” mentioned by Boonstra.  In a sane world, China’s economic interests–more specifically, their continued arming of the current regime–would likely disqualify them from having any negotiating stake on the genocide in Darfur.  However, in the world that is the “international community,” they not only have a say, but they represent a deciding factor in whether or not the United Nations can take more aggressive action with Khartoum.  Under the current system, the enablers are permitted to not only enable, but to mitigate any and all solutions.  The only thing the United States can do in this situation, sadly, is lobby China like every other nation to take Darfur more seriously.  Unfortunately, Sudan sits on a long list of gripes and grievances we currently have with the People’s Republic, which also currently includes Tibet, Iran, and other matters like climate and trade. 

There’s certainly a lot of blame to go around on the genocide in Darfur, and unfortunately, a lot of it is beyond the scope of American power.