Darfur, the other five year war. Posted by Anita Sharma

The other five year war, Darfur, may receive less attention than Iraq but that doesn’t mean that the level of suffering is less horrific, or the path to peace any easier. In fact the situation is actually worsening: more people are dying and being displaced, food rations to the needy are about to be cut in half, the full deployment of a new peacekeeping force has been delayed until 2009 and the Sudanese government and rebel groups are resisting new peace negotiations.

"We continue to see the goal posts receding, to the point where peace in Darfur seems further away today than ever," said John Holmes, under secretary general for humanitarian affairs at the UN. In his report to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Holmes said of Darfur's estimated 6 million people, some 4.27 million have now been seriously affected by the conflict and perhaps as many as 300,000 have been killed.

Although the needs continue to be great, the World Food Program recently announced it was cutting food rations in half because attacks on its trucks have reduced stocks. Today the WFP said that one of its drivers was killed when his truck broke down during a police escorted aid convoy, further illustrating the perils.

UNAMID, the a joint U.N.-African Union force agreed to by Sudan, was supposed to be deployed to offer protection to convoys like these. But so far only about 9,000 of the authorized 26,000 peacekeepers have been deployed. Yesterday, Jane Holl Lute, a senior U.N. official who overseas the organization's field operations, (and my former boss at the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict), briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said that the mission lacks still lacks five critical capabilities to become operational – attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, transport helicopters, military engineers and logistical support, not to mention the other soldiers to fulfill the mission.

During the same hearing the U.S. Envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson defended the U.S. decision to meet recently with Sudan's government about the possibility of better ties, and said that concrete progress toward ending the "slow-moving genocide" in Sudan's Darfur region must take place before the United States will improve relations with Khartoum.

So what needs to happen?

First: give the UN the equipment is so desperately needs. According to Lute there are 4,000 helicopters currently in NATO countries. This mission requires 24.

Second: according to Ken Bacon, the President of Refugees International, the international community needs to pressure both the government of Sudan and the fractious rebel groups to get to the peace table.

The U.S. and its European and Middle Eastern allies should impose strict travel sanction on Sudanese government and rebel leaders until they reach a peace agreement. In addition, arms embargos on both the government and rebel groups should be closely enforced.

Third: keep up the pressure on China. Although recent events in Tibet have over-shadowed Darfur in terms of Beijing's human rights record, the issue remains the same. China is the top arms supplier to Sudan and a major investor in Africa's largest country, particularly in its oil industry. It has tremendous influence on Khartoum’s decisions. While not calling for a boycott or the Olympics, on Wednesday Dream for Darfur released report cards of the top Olympic sponsors and said 16 out of 19 top Olympic sponsors it had contacted had failed to speak out against the genocide out of fear of offending China. It said it would target corporate headquarters for protests, starting with Coca-Cola.

All three presidential candidates say that President Bush should skip the opening ceremonies if China does not improve its human rights record in Tibet and Darfur. Thus far the leaders of Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Poland, Estonia and the Czech Republic have said they will not attend the opening ceremonies.

Senator Barack Obama, D-Presidential Candidate: "If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies.”

Senator Hillary Clinton, D-Presidential Candidate: “At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government."

Senator John McCain, R-Presidential Candidate: "Unless they change something pretty quickly, I would not go to the opening ceremonies.”

However, President Bush says he will attend the Games.

"I don't view the Olympics as a political event. I view it as a sporting event," he said.

In Women’s Absence, No Security for Kenya Posted by Marie Wilson

Today, the National Council of Women of Kenya decried their exclusion from the current mediation talks being lead by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.  The Council’s chair, Isabella Karanja, condemned Kenya’s disregard for UN Security Council Resolution 1325 that supports women's participation in mediation.  I’ve been paying close attention to Kenya’s dramatic social and political breakdown, and I can assure you that the exclusion of women from the mediation process is not only unjust – it is a grave sentence for the Kenyan people and their nation’s future.

The country’s rapid descent into violence and relative chaos was sparked by a crack in the veneer of its successful democracy, and attributed to tribal anger and the back-and-forth of ethnic reprisals.  But the violence that Kenyans are suffering, and that we witness in disturbing daily imagery, is rooted in the nation’s lack of access to jobs and healthcare, inequalities in land and resources – all glaring disparities which are funneled into ethnic tensions.  Kenya’s current malaise will only be cured through the acknowledgement of human security as fundamental to state security.  And the issues which make up human security are the issues that women have continually championed worldwide: basic human needs like economic and environmental justice, safe streets, healthcare and education.

Kenya is not unique.  With few exceptions, women have found themselves systematically closed out of the security debate – with severe consequences for national and global security.  Which is why The White House Project, along with a myriad of other groups across the globe, have come together to permanently shift the way we think about, and enact policy, on security. 

In November of 2007, The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands in partnership with The White House Project, the Council of Women World Leaders and the Women Leaders Intercultural Forum, convened the historic International Women Leaders Global Security Summit in New York, bringing together over 75 of the worlds most powerful women leaders in a Call to Action on international security.  Under the leadership of co-hosts Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, and Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, they worked together to tackle the world’s most critical security issues. And in the Summit’s aftermath, hundreds of women and men alike have signed on to this critical cause, committing their resources to uphold the bold imperative of crafting policy that holds human security to be intimately intertwined with state security.  I encourage you to join this vital effort and sign the Call to Action as well.

We are witnessing moves in the right direction, and I am heartened by the women and men around the world currently working on issues of human security.  When I was researching the new afterward to my book, Closing the Leadership Gap, I was buoyed by how far women have come in the field of security since the book’s original publication four years ago.  But there is so much further that we need to go in order to normalize women’s leadership in this area, and truly listen to the women working on the ground when we craft national policy.  From Kenya’s post-election violence to the devastation in Iraq, we need women’s voices to be an integral part of the conversation.  As the scale of violence and human insecurity continues its rapid escalation, the critical paradigm shift on security cannot wait a moment longer.

Holding Mugabe to Account Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This is a piece I published at TNR.com on whether Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe ought to be offered immunity in exchange for a swifter exit.  Its the old "peace versus justice" dilemma, with the new wrinkle being that the culture of impugnity in Africa has finally showed some signs of fading, meaning that now is not the time to put aside principle and revert back to old ways.  One depressing aspect is that some of my earliest pieces for Democracy Arsenal more than two years ago (like here and here) were about Zimbabwe, and since then things have changed only for the worse.  Its almost enough to make you want to do a deal, any deal, to get rid of Mugabe . . .

At long last, we seem to be approaching--fitfully--global agreement than Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's elected dictator, must go. He is presiding over 80 percent unemployment, an inflation rate of 1,700 percent, and shortages of nearly all basic goods. In response to his troubles, Mugabe has attacked and injured opposition leaders, opened fire on protestors, and beaten those who resist arrest. In a comparison that is as harsh as it gets in southern Africa, clerics have equated his tyrannical tactics to the worst of Pretoria's apartheid regime.

And, since many of his critics now believe that toppling his regime--and getting a fresh start for Zimbabwe--is more important than holding him to account, there are increasing calls for Mugabe to be forgiven. Zimbabwe's opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai--whose skull was cracked open in police custody last month--has hinted that Mugabe should be offered immunity if he agrees to step down. The International Crisis Group, in a March report, likewise assumed that immunity would be part of the solution. It is widely surmised that, if current efforts by South African President Thabo Mbeki help end to Mugabe's rule, protection from prosecution may be part of the deal.

But, while immunity may seem a tempting solution--no worse than the way many other tyrants have left office--offering it to Mugabe now would represent a big step backward.

Sudan's Bashir Knows No Bounds Posted by Jeremy Broussard

A leaked United Nations report claims that Sudan is flying heavy weapons into Darfur, in direct violation of UN Resolution 1556.  To add insult to injury, the Sudanese government has painted these transport aircraft white, giving them the appearance of a UN aircraft to the untrained eye.  Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has done this while simultaneously delayed allowing a larger UN peacekeeping force to accompany the African Union forces ostensibly patrolling Darfur.

President Bush has threatened to tighten the financial sanctions already in place against Sudan, but it's doubtful that much will come of it.  Sitting on a proven reserve of 1.6B bbls of oil, Sudan is just too tempting for some nations with an growing energy demand (read China) to present a unified global front.  In fact, recent arms sales to Sudan only feed the beast and cause further regional instability, especially in neighboring Chad.

Bush also proposed a no-fly zone--a la pre-"liberation" Iraq--to eliminate the air support Bashir's military gives the Janjaweed militia who attack the black Sudanese in Darfur.

Enough is enough.  Over 200,000 Sudanese civilians have been killed in Darfur, twice the number killed in 1994 when NATO intervened in the Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Over 2.3 million have been made refugees, many internally-displaced.  Frankly, the U.S. is not in a position militarily or diplomatically to take direct against against the Bashir government, but our NATO allies should.  More importantly, the African Union should show true leadership and stop one of the worst genocides in Africa from continuing.

As we commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day this week, we must not let the words "never again" be hollow rhetoric. 

What Darfur Means for our National Security Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Apologies for the long gaps on the blog. I'm home in New Mexico for Christmas and finally got to my mom's house in the Four Corners where I astonishingly found a new DSL line.  This is a big deal seeing as the most advanced technology until now is a windmill to pump water for the horses.

The day before Christmas, I drove by a sign from Savedarfur.org. It stated simply "Not on our watch".  It was a poignant reminder of what's going on in the world--and it made me feel awkward on my way to the shopping mall to catch the last minute sales.  The sign also reminded me of three things that recently came across my defense-wonk radar. First, this great article in last week's New Yorker about social science insights gaining ground in the US Government--including the Defense Department. Second, that even the highly resistant Bush Administration is warming up to the idea of a larger Army . And third, that the DoD just released its latest Counter Insurgency Doctrine manual. 

The manual codifies an important lesson of insurgencies: it takes more than the military to win. So what has this all got to do with SaveDarfur? 

Why Bono Should be our Next Secretary of State Posted by Shadi Hamid

Yes, this post may strike some as random, but it must be said, and I cannot help but say it. U2's Bono should be our next Secretary of State, under, of course, a Democratic administration in 2008. I came to this “conclusion,” when buried in my MP3 collection, I was struck once again by Bono’s remarkable skills as a communicator. In a live version of the classic “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” he breaks off into one of his impassioned mini-speeches:

Let me tell you something…I’ve had enough of Irish Americans who haven’t been back to their country in twenty or thirty years, come up to me and talk about the resistance, the revolution back home. And the glory of the revolution and the glory of dying for the revolution…Fuck the revolution! They don’t talk about the glory of killing for the revolution. What’s the glory in taking a man from his bed and gunning him down in front of his wife and his children? Where’s the glory in that? Where’s the glory in bombing a Remembrance Day parade of old-age pensioners their medals taken out and polished up for the day? Where’s the glory in that? To leave them dying or crippled for life or dead under the rubble of a revolution that the majority of people in my country don’t want…say no more, no more, no more, no more….”

The crowd, tens of thousands strong, screams back in unison. It is one of those rare, cathartic moments in music. Bono’s message here and elsewhere is affecting, powerful, and totally in keeping with America’s founding ideals. A keen regard not only for the dignity of the oppressed but for those who will no doubt be made to suffer in the sullied name of redemption. Joe Klein, to his credit, keeps on talking about the chokehold political consultants have on the Democratic Party and that we need genuine politicians who actually believe in something, who are alive with feeling, emotion, and (within bounds) righteous anger. Ok, then, let’s do this. Why Bono? Here are 7 reasons:

1. He actually does have substantive foreign policy experience, having met with and discussed the intricacies of Western aid to Africa with heads of state and senior-level officials from around the world. Moreover, he has been on the front lines of setting a new Africa agenda for development organizations, including USAID, the World Bank and the IMF.

Justice for Africa: Charles Taylor in the Dock Posted by Suzanne Nossel

In scenes straight out of a Hollywood action film, last week former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor found himself in a dragnet when the Nigerian government, after years of protecting him, finally announced plans to turn the ex-dictator over to a UN special court to be tried for war crimes and atrocities committed in support of civil war in Sierra Leone.  Within 24 hours Taylor had escaped, and rumor was that he might attempt a coup back in Liberia's capital.  But the Nigerians nabbed him, and Taylor is now in UN custody in Freetown, Sierra Leone on his way to trial.

If things go as planned from now on, Taylor's extradition could become a major step toward justice and accountability in Africa.  Though Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda and many other countries have suffered under brutal and reckless leaders, none of these criminal heads of state has ever been brought to trial.   The U.S. played a constructive role in trying to break the pattern with Taylor, pushing hard on newly elected Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to demand his extradition from Nigeria. 

U.S. and UN pressure, coupled with Johnson-Sirleaf's call, forced Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo to depart from a longstanding but deeply destructive policy of unwavering comity among African leaders.  Feeling sidelined and mistreated by the rest of the world, African leaders have sought strength in solidarity and been reluctant to break ranks regardless of how illegitimate, incompetent, or plain evil individual members of the fraternity are.

When Interpol first tried to arrest Taylor at a Summit of East African leaders in 2003, Obasanjo and others balked at the affront to a head of state representing his country at a multinational gathering.  This despite Taylor's role in violating 8 peace accords and 13 ceasefires in his region, and his continued efforts to bedevil attempts to settle a conflict fought by hacking the limbs and gouging the eyes of children.

African leaders found it unseemly that Taylor would be tried as a sitting President by a "not well recognized court" and a "junior legal luminary" (the American prosecutor).  So instead of being held accountable for his crimes, Taylor was granted asylum in Nigeria on condition that he stay out of Liberian affairs and that if a duly elected Liberian government were ever to ask, he would be handed over.  The first condition was never enforced, and Taylor continued to have in-person contacts and financial dealings with Liberian rebels. 

There are rumors that Obasanjo's fealty to Taylor continued even after the Nigerian President agreed to accede to the extradition last week.  The speed with which Nigerian policy recaptured Taylor after his escape raises questions over whether the Nigerian government may have known his whereabouts all along.

But that aside, the reality of Taylor being put in the dock to account for his crimes before a hybrid international and Sierra Leonian court sends the following important messages:

1.  That even a continent with no greater downfall than official corruption and abuse, there is hope for accountability.  The road to Taylor's capture was sufficiently long and tortured that most wayward African despots will still be able to comfort themselves that they aren't important enough to the United States to ever attract the level of attention and pressure put on the Taylor case.   But if well-publicized over the next year or two, Taylor's trial and fate could have some constraining effect.

2.  That the firm fraternity of African leaders, thick enough to mask all manner of misdeeds, has its limits.  There have been a few tentative signs in recent months that African leaders are starting to recognize the folly of protecting their own irrespective of the geopolitical and moral costs.  They kept Sudan from assuming the rotating presidency of the African Union and now, though under duress, have turned in Taylor.  If this trend can gain steam, competent and incorruptible African leaders could one day be the most powerful force the continent has for cracking down on those who are neither.

3.  That the U.S., in spite of everything, can under the right circumstances still be a force for accountability and the rule of law.  We've spent a lot of time at Democracy Arsenal and elsewhere talking about the violence that's been done to America's international legitimacy by dint of our rejection of the International Criminal Court, tolerance for torture, indifference to detainees rights, etc.   A primary reason why all that's so distressing is that its undermined the U.S.'s role as a champion for human rights around the globe, setting back both our influence and the struggle for human rights itself.  The damage is serious, but its neither complete nor irreversible.  Our role in the apprehension and trial of Charles Taylor is a reassuring, though fleeting reminder of the kind of force in the world we can and must again be.

Is NATO really right for Sudan? Posted by Jeffrey Laurenti

Progressive-minded Americans can relish the moment.  Kofi Annan went to see George Bush on Monday to tell him—if we may strip away the layers of flowery diplomatic politesse—to put up or shut up.  For two years Washington has been insistently demanding strong action by the United Nations to halt the janjaweed massacres and expulsions in Darfur.   Now that the international will has congealed to send in a U.N. protection force, an administration that has dominated the jawboning needs to do a share of the heavy lifting.

But the notion that NATO should send a force into Sudan is, with due respect to Senator Joe Biden and its other enthusiasts, simply bone-headed.  NATO is already on thin ice in Afghanistan as an alien force in a Muslim sea, but at least the Afghan government in Kabul wants it there.  NATO has even less business going into a civil conflict in Sudan, where a resistant government in Khartoum suspects Western governments really just want to split the country—and many Africans believe it. 

Western military capacities can certainly strengthen the limited reach of the force currently deployed by the threadbare African Union.  But they can’t substitute for it:  Africa’s participation is indispensable (and no one else, from NATO or otherwise, will put up the troops needed on the ground to police so vast an area as Darfur).  And neither Europeans nor Africans have any stomach for becoming a military arm of the Darfur rebels.  Neither do Americans, at least not those outside of Washington.

The obvious framework is a U.N. operation that harnesses both African and Western capacities. Members of NATO can put the same military capacities to work under a U.N. aegis as under NATO’s – but the Africans will not take orders from a Euro-American command and political body in which they have no voice. Of course, Washington is allergic to U.N. operations, and armchair warriors are quick to accuse U.N. leadership of being too reluctant to use military force.  (That’s why we did our own thing in Somalia in 1993.)  But after the recent experience of U.S. military unilateralism, the American public may be grateful for the restraint on reckless “robustness” that global accountability may entail.

We should be careful what we wish for.  Just when the American people have caught on to the folly of military adventurism in Iraq, do “progressives” want to tell them we have another war to involve them in?  Handle with care….   

Darfur Needs More Cheek and Less Bush Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Number of troops and/or dollars President Bush committed on Monday to UN peacekeeping mission for Darfur, Sudan, after a request for support from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in an Oval Office meeting: 0.

Number of troops and/or dollars American speedskater Joey Cheek committed to Sudanese relief after winning a $25,000 bonus for his Olympic gold medal:  $25,000.

Ok, Derek brings you the substance and I bring you the guy in tights.   

But this points up both how far Darfur and its horrors have crept into the public consciousness (through the unlikely triumverate of aid groups, evangelicals, and MTV) and how little both the folks in power and the media have responded to those concerns.

So, reasons for optimism:  1) Americans really do care about this one; and 2) Cheek is skating for the kids of Darfur again later this week, and Darfur will get more airtime on NBC thanks to Mr. Cheek than the peace talks and Kofi Annan's pleas combined.

Go, Joey.

Reasons for pessimism:  remember how lambasted the Clinton Administration was for its slow response to Bosnia?  the Bosnian conflict lasted for three years and killed between 100-200,000; in Darfur, we're coming up on three years and 180,000 dead.  Or is that a reason for optimism?  Is three years and six figures our real threshold for genocide?

A Darfur Breakthrough? Posted by Derek Chollet

After failing to utter a syllable about the genocide raging in Darfur during his State of the Union address, President Bush finally spoke out today.  Well, he didn’t really have much of a choice – in the press availability following his meeting with Kofi Annan, it was bound to come up. 

Yet this follows what has been – the President’s silence notwithstanding – a pretty good few weeks by the Administration on this issue.  One of John Bolton’s first moves as this month’s UN Security Council president was to raise Darfur, calling on the Council to authorize planning from the woefully undermanned and underequipped African Union force to a more robust, UN peacekeeping force.  The Council agreed to do this last week, and planning is underway for a UN force that could be as large as 20,000 troops.

Could we be on the cusp of a breakthrough in terms of the international community's actions toward Darfur?  Perhaps.  But even if the days ahead in the UN go smoothly (and that's a big if), the problem is what to do in the meantime – the UN planning process is not exactly speedy, and the African Union troops there are not up to the task.  Their mandate runs out at the end of March.  So we need some kind of “bridging force,” and last week Senator Joe Biden called for NATO to get involved.  This is the right move -- we have been arguing for it for nine months – and one that the Administration must support.  But the truth is that this will only happen if the Administration comes under greater pressure from more than just editorial boards and, ahem, blogs.  It needs to hear from the public and Congress, and groups like Stop Genocide Now are working on it -- and need our help.

Beyond NATO, there’s so much more the President could do.  Nicholas Kristof, who has perhaps done more than any other journalist to raise awareness on Darfur's plight, offered a series of practical and completely doable steps in his NY Times column over the weekend (notice also that he raises a good point about the prospect of American military troops on the ground there, which is something that Biden is open to).

Stop Darfur's Freefall Posted by Derek Chollet

The State of the Union address is one of those policy Chirstmas trees where every pet project and issue wants (and usually gets) its own ornament – Suzanne and Heather’s posts below illustrate how once one gets into the business of listing the many worthy issues, they add up quickly -- and that’s just on the international stuff.  So, in that spirit I’d like to make a wish for my own special ornament: that President Bush says he’s going to do something about Darfur.

With all the pressing issues in the news – Iraq, Iran, Hamas, North Korea – it’s not surprising that what’s happening inside Darfur has moved to the side.  But the next few weeks will be critical – the mandate for the underfunded and beleaguered 5000-troop protection force headed by the African Union is due to expire by March 31, and things in Darfur are only getting worse. 

During the past year, there has been a lot of well-intentioned international activity to help Darfur – but the killing isn’t stopping.  As John Prendergast recently told the New York Times, “Darfur is in a free fall.”

Kofi Annan agrees.  “People in many parts of Darfur,” he wrote last week, “continue to be killed, raped and driven from their homes by the thousands. The number displaced has reached 2 million, while 3 million (half the total population of Darfur) are dependent on international relief for food and other basics. Many parts of Darfur are becoming too dangerous for relief workers to reach. The peace talks are far from reaching a conclusion. And fighting now threatens to spread into neighboring Chad, which has accused Sudan of arming rebels on its territory.”

With the United States assuming the presidency of the UN Security Council tomorrow, the Bush Administration has an opportunity to press for a new and more meaningful policy to stop the killing.  As Kenneth Bacon writes in today’s New York Times (and others have echoed), the United States should use the next 28 days to save Darfur. 

African Union Stands Up to One of Its Own Posted by Suzanne Nossel

One of the most frustrating phenomena that bedevils the US at the UN is having to deal with dictators, failed states and rogue leaders that are routinely annointed to lead and represent regional groups.   This is how we wind up with the likes of Libya on the UN's Commission on Human Rights and Syria on the UN Security Council. 

Several regional blocs, including most notoriously the African Group, have traditionally determined their leadership on the basis of a strict rotation that is oblivious to the credibility or qualifications of countries for the leadership posts they seek. 

The premise of this policy, which is not impossible to understand, seems to be that with all the world judging them for their failures, they will refuse to stand in judgement of one another.   The result, however, has been to undermine the participation of Africa in international forums and to discredit the forums themselves on account of their inappropriate membership and leadership.

But there's finally some evidence this practice may be coming to a stop.  Based on the rotational system Sudan was slated to become the next President of the African Union.  Enmeshed in multiple civil wars, accused of sponsoring grave atrocities against its own people, and under investigation by the International Criminal Court the Sudanese government has hit an all-time low in terms of credibility on the continent and around the world.

To their credit, Sudan's African neighbors seem poised to break with tradition and deny Khartoum the top slot.   Faced with mutiny, the Sudanese government seems ready to end its bid for the chairmanship.

It's a small but potentially significant step forward.

Adventures of a Hero of Mulilateralism Posted by Michael Osborne

Responding to my post of yesterday, in which I made the point that France had intervened without UN authorisation in the civil war in Côte d'Ivoire, KB says that “when the French deployed in 2002 it did so at the request of the legitimate government of the IC and therefore didn't need UN say so.”

The French action has not been adjudicated in any international tribunal but I suspect that if it was it might well be found to have been unlawful. For one thing, by the time the French arrived on the scene a large portion of the north of the country had been seized by opponents of President Laurent Gbagbo, who had thereafter requested French assistance.  Under international law, if rebel forces succeed in acquiring control over a significant portion of the country, the conflict advances to a state of "insurgency," by which time the government's inability to control the entirety of its territory renders its claim to legitimacy uncertain.  Short of U.N. authorisation, states are then expected to refrain from offering assistance to either side in the conflict, inasmuch as any assistance would likely influence the outcome of what has now become a civil war.

Attention to Africa: Be Careful What You Wish For Posted by Heather Hurlburt

This piece in Tuesday's Washington Post is a lovely bit of writing, even if it does draw too heavily on the "white man's burden" school of Africa reporting.  The substance of its coverage, focused on a unit of National Guard reserve Green Berets training Chadian soldiers, under the headline "US Pushes Anti-Terrorism in Africa," was, however, lacking in content and context.  Using the magic of the web, allow me to fill in some gaps.

1.  So, the US has just discovered a terrible terrorism threat in Africa?

For years now, Africa advocacy groups have been toying around with the theme that Africa presents ripe opportunities for terrorists, in hopes that the US would pay more attention.  Well, folks, my mother used to tell me about Saint Theresa, who cursed you by giving you what you thought you wanted -- and here we are.

According to the International Crisis Group, the highest threat of Islamist activity is actually in Mali, "star pupil of 1990s neo-liberal democratisation."  ICG (see links below) also says that the Salafist Brotherhood for Preaching and Combat was dramatically weakened by the raid described in the article.

In any case, what seems clear is that recognition of terrorism in Africa is not, in fact, leading to increased resources for government, health, education and other areas that will, in the long run, give people choices beyond joining terrorist groups and hunting gazelles and/or non-Muslims.   It's leading to more DoD programming with little regard for broader political consequences.  Oh well.

2.  And the military response is the best one?  Thank goodness the Pentagon is on the case.

Back in March, the International Crisis Group published a report on US anti-terrorism activities in Africa which had some rather pungent things to say about where there is a problem:

With the U.S. heavily committed in other parts of the world, however, Washington is unlikely to devote substantial non-military resources to the Sahel soon, even though Africa is slowly gaining recognition -- not least due to West Africa's oil -- as an area of strategic interest to the West. The resultant equation is laden with risks, including turning the small number of arrested clerics and militants into martyrs, thus giving ammunition to local anti-American or anti-Western figures who claim the PSI (and the proposed, expanded Trans-Saharan Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI) still under consideration in the U.S. government) is part of a larger plan to render Muslim populations servile; and cutting off smuggling networks that have become the economic lifeblood of Saharan peoples whose livestock was devastated by the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s, without offering economic alternatives. To avoid creating the kinds of problems the PSI is meant to solve, it needs to be folded into a more balanced approach to the region, one also in which Europeans and Americans work more closely together.

3.  Of course, this will also promote democratic accountability, since that is so important to the Bush Administration.

One of the things I love about working with the military is that by and large you get very straightforward answers to questions.  Our Post reporter is clearly troubled by the implications of training a military whose job is to protect an embattled and autocratic government frm its irate fellow-citizens.  She notices that members of Chad's president's small ethnic group control everything and are "feared" by others.  She poses the question to a soldier and gets the following answer, much more straightforward than any comment you will get on the subject back home:

"It just makes sense. They're the president's guard, and so in this region, with all the coups and stuff, you'd want them the best trained," said Capt. Jason, the team leader.  U.S. officials said the battalion is based in N'Djamena to safeguard the government and prevent its vehicles from falling into the hands of regional commanders.

Res ipsa loquitor.  (**Thanks, Dan, for correcting my Latin spelling.)  But there's really no further comment on the old democracy vs. stability argument needed.

4.  And nothing like this has ever been tried before?

Here's where readers can test out their wonk skills.  What do ACRI and ACOTA stand for?  Which was an initiative of the Clinton Administration, and which of Bush 43?  What was the difference between them?

The Africa Crisis Response Initiative was a State Department-managed, DOD-supported program to train selected African militaries for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, and promote Africans' ability to work together (basically, to build a peacekeeping capacity for circumstances in which the US and other Western nations would not send forces themselves).  This was a Clinton-era initiative in the wake of Rwanda.

In FY2004, the Bush Administration replaced this with Africa Contingency Operations Training Assistance, focused "on training trainers and providing programs tailored to individual country needs."

Obviously, peacekeeping and terrorist-hunting are not the same things.  But we do have a dismaying track record of Administrations trying out and then abandoning ideas for Africa, as if no one had ever thought of them before.  And then we wonder why our programs encounter difficulty in producing long-term change.

So we know that the trouble with the war on terror is that our allies can't just be Britain, Poland, and those plucky democrats in Georgia and Ukraine.   Now that Secretary Rumsfeld has shored u p our bases in Uzbekistan, and gotten the Kyrgyz to say that they didn't really mean what they said when the Russians and Chinese were in the room, can't we be a little more honest about where we can't avoid dealing with thugs, and a little more discriminating about which thugs we hug?

One is just left with the impression here that this Administration's policy is more like that wonderful board game Risk -- "terrorists here?  let's put some chips there" -- than an actual calculation of the sum total of US interests and how to maximize them.

The International Crisis Group report I linked to above has some good policy suggestions, among them doing more cooperative work with the Europeans in Africa.  At least that would give our soldiers some up-to-date maps of Chad.

(It's good to be back.  I'll have my midwest trip report soon...)

Getting Serious on Africa Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Salon asked to publish one of our nifty swifty Democracy Arsenal Top 10 lists, so this is reposted here courtesy of them.  I am gonna add in just a few DA links to reference our own prior discussioins on some of these issues (couldn't be as shameless in driving people here from Salon as I might've liked).

On the eve of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, President Bush deserves some credit for his proposals to address the lot of Africa's roughly 850 million people. Bush's promises to double U.S. aid to Africa, to cancel the debts of Africa's 18 most heavily indebted nations, and to up funds for AIDS and malaria all tackle issues that matter in ways that will have an impact. But all told, these measures fall well short of amounting to a comprehensive strategy for Africa.

The administration promotes the impression that Bush is leading a drive to eradicate poverty and stem the African continent's many other woes. For now, these claims are overstated. Under heavy pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and at a moment when the U.S. badly needs to improve its global image, Bush has chosen proposals that sidestep some of the biggest questions about Africa's future. Bush's critics have focused mostly on his failure to do enough for Africa. They complain that the U.S.' allotment for overseas development assistance falls far below the .7 percent of GDP target that the most generous European nations are hitting. Reaching .7 percent would require a fivefold increase in U.S. spending on development aid, something the administration has flat-out rejected.

But in addition to asking for more funds and pressing the administration to make good on its newest pledges -- the purported doubling of aid monies actually falls far short of that -- Africa's advocates should demand that important gaps be filled if Bush is to style himself as Africa's protector and benefactor. They should press the administration to go beyond discrete pledges and programs and adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing the continent's many needs. Regardless of which motive is paramount, moral outrage over the suffering and underdevelopment on the continent or fear that Africa's plagues -- disease, terrorism, failed states and environmental degradation to name a few -- may ultimately hit our own shores, a more systematic approach to an Africa policy is the right one.

Here are 10 things President Bush could do to show he's really serious about Africa.

1. Make good on existing promises. Perhaps the biggest weakness in Bush's newest announcements on Africa is his track record of leaving similarly ambitious proposals underfunded and underfulfilled. Doubts about whether Bush will deliver have not surprisingly undercut positive reactions to these latest ideas. It has taken more than three years for Bush's Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) to begin disbursing funds. As of this spring just one country, Madagascar, had seen a cent and just 2 percent of the appropriated funds had been spent. Amounts pledged to fight AIDS in Africa have also been vulnerable to repeated lowballing in the administration's budget requests. To rebuild trust, Bush should make clear that these new promises will be accompanied by a push to satisfy the old ones.

2. Launch a major push on vaccine availability. One of the less noticed but potentially pathbreaking outcomes of pre-G8 summit finance minister meetings was an agreement to expedite efforts to pre-purchase massive quantities of newly developed vaccines for distribution in African countries. The administration historically has been loath to intervene in the pharmaceutical industry's practices for making treatments and vaccines cheaply available in poor countries. U.S. leadership will be critical to this plan, and Bush should provide it. (Check out this blog for more details on how the plan will motivate faster vaccine development.)

3. Stop lumping all of Africa together. A key first step toward understanding and addressing the African continent is to recognize racial, socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, military, religious and political diversity within it. Some nations -- South Africa and Nigeria, for example, are key U.S. military and economic allies; others, like Congo and Sierra Leone, are in disarray and virtually without hope. By refusing to lump all of Africa together either rhetorically or through policies, Bush can pave the way for approaches that better reflect a polyglot region.

4. Address each stage of development. Whereas the MCA is targeted at Africa's most capable governments, and the latest debt initiative aims to help the very weakest, most of Africa's nations fall somewhere in between and aren't getting much out of the new Bush programs. A comprehensive strategy to address poverty in Africa needs to address countries at every stage of development. Missing pieces include debt relief for more nations (Nigeria has already been singled out to get a break), aid to African entrepreneurs and small businesses, and infrastructure/job creation programs.

5. Create a governance aid program. The Bush administration has rightly pointed out that hundreds of millions of dollars in development aid for African countries have historically been plundered and wasted by corrupt and/or inept governments. This is why the MCA gives only to countries that meet strict governance criteria. Rather than simply citing the problem and rewarding those who have overcome it, the U.S. should lead a major push to strengthen governance structures in countries that have the will to improve. Working with multilateral and private organizations, we should be training African lawyers, judges, accountants and auditors and sending in pro bono professionals of our own (as we've done in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Iraq) to address the stranglehold of corruption on Africa's progress. (the New York Times makes a similar point).

The Long Arm of Beijing - Felt in Harare Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Things in Zimbabwe have gone from very bad to a lot worse, and almost no one is talking about what's happening or one of the forces behind the Mugabe regime's endurance:  China.   Our last check-in on events in Harare was around April Fool's Day.  But Mugabe's success in shutting down the opposition and winning himself another term was no joke.

Since then his appalling policies have gotten much worse.  The despot has borrowed a page from South Africa's apartheid government and started razing squatter camps and digging up urban gardens as a way to punish and disperse his opponents, many of whom lived in city shantytowns.  Meanwhile the country is facing massive shortages of food and fuel, its economy is in ruins, its fields are fallow, and its currency nearly worthless.

Here, on a site maintained by Mugabe opponents, is an interesting analysis of China's role in propping up the Harare regime:

A couple of excerpts:

Quietly, without fanfare, China has been moving into Africa. Africa is the one continent which still has relatively untapped reserves, particularly of fossil fuels and minerals. Her main targets have been Sudan, Nigeria, and Angola . . .What could China want in Zimbabwe? We do not have oil, our population is small compared to those of larger African countries. Our location is not particularly strategic for an outsider. What the Chinese want is raw materials and opportunities for investment.

ZANU PF has doubtless observed how China has been able to supply the Sudanese government with military equipment used against their own people and at the same time frustrate any United Nations action against Sudan for the atrocities in Darfur . . . The Chinese government also has an interest in political alliances that will promote China's policies world-wide. They want supporting votes in international bodies that will protect them from scrutiny over their human rights abuses, their non-observance of international labour standards, not to mention violations of democratic principles and civil rights. A state such as Zimbabwe can provide that support.

Recently we have seen the use of the Chinese jets, the army trucks and riot gear in the war on the urban poor. The use of slogans for campaigns such as "Driving out the Rubbish" are reminiscent of Chinese campaigns during the Cultural Revolution.

The analysis confirms the theme of Joshua Kurlantzick's piece in this week's New Republic, picked up by Brad Plumer at Mojo.  Kurlantzick tracks China's arrogation of "soft power" - economic, political and diplomatic influence throughout the world, particularly in Latin America and Africa.

On the quick, a bunch of implications relating to some of the debates ongoing here:

- Going back to our Truman debates, though I agree that the notion of hegemony is distasteful, this kind of thing underscores for me the importance of ensuring that U.S. influence around the world doesn't wane - China's choice of friends, based on self-interested criteria, may help keep tyrants in power; 

- In weighing U.S. influence at the UN and the potential for reform of the organization, China is a major counterweight, and almost always enjoys the allegiance of the world body's controlling bloc of developing world countries.   Our single-minded focus on the war on terror to the exclusion of priorities uppermost in the developing world has only heightened this problem.

- All this ties in to the idea that, while its at a slow boil, we are in a battle of ideas not just with extremists, but also with China's version of globalization - a concept built on economic interests only, with no concern for democracy or human rights.  One of the gravest weaknesses of the Bush Administration's foreign policy is that it has allowed China to build popularity and influence while our own ties and stature around the world have atrophied.  This is doubly egregious in light of that fact that our appeal - the promise of freedom, our culture - should inherently be much more powerful than China's.  But our messenger's approach and tactics have badly undercut the message, and right now China's delivering where we aren't.

Five Myths About Polling That Progressives Should Reconsider Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Last week’s commentary on the Zogby International/International Crisis Group Darfur poll between Kevin Drum and Suzanne and Derek -- and Nick Kristof's piece on the same begged for some broader commentary on what polls do and don’t tell us. I am aided and improved here by guest commentator Mark Lindeman, Assistant Professor of Political Studies at Bard and my personal unbiased (though progressive) polling expert.

Myth #1: Don’t know = don’t care.

Drum’s post gives us a good example of this one:

For starters, only 18% of the poll's respondents are even aware Darfur exists. The other 82% are either "slightly aware" of Darfur or not even that — and I'd bet my last nickel that "slightly" is just a face-saving version of "I couldn't tell you which continent Darfur is on if you paid me." So I'd take this whole poll with a large shaker of salt.

Now, what’s really interesting about this poll is that, though 82 percent start off saying they aren’t really aware of Darfur, 80 percent say they would favor establishing a no-fly zone. That’s pretty impressive for a crisis they’ve only just heard about. Tells you that maybe don’t know = gee, I was running the blender during that part of the news, or I thought it was a promo for that new LiveAid with the Spice Girls getting back together… but I know that mass killing and rape are bad, and I want to see it stopped… why don’t you tell me about it?

These kinds of numbers are an invitation to inform the public, not give up on them.

What Heather said. Right now, probably what most Americans know about Darfur or Sudan is that terrible things are happening and no one seems to know what to do about them. Most people don’t enjoy learning about terrible things they can do nothing about. (See myth #2 below.)

By the way, words matter. The poll designers asked respondents to describe their knowledge (sic) as “very aware,” “slightly aware,” “not very aware,” or “not at all aware.” It takes chops to consider oneself “very aware” of Darfur. (If this isn’t obvious, try reading my local paper for a while and see what you know.) So, Kevin Drum is probably wrong that so few people “are even aware Darfur exists.”

That said, I basically agree with Drum’s main point. (And I don’t know whether he intended to embrace Myth #1, although the myth is out there.) Sure, we can’t take literally the finding that “80% of Americans back a no-fly zone over Darfur” if many of them don’t know whether Darfur is a region of Sudan, an Iraqi city, or the villain in a possible Star Wars Episode Seven. The result doesn’t tell us what people think about this issue – they haven’t thought about this issue. But it gives us a clue about how people think, and what they might think once the issue is raised. Use that salt carefully!

Myth #2: Polls like this reflect a momentary frisson of horror, not a lasting concern.

Actually, Americans are pretty consistent:  they don’t favor willy-nilly introduction of US troops, but they do want to feel that the US is “doing its part” to solve huge disasters and problems. The quickest way to make this myth come true, by the way, is to keep emphasizing to the public how awful and hopeless a situation is; they will feel guilty, get overwhelmed, give up, and look away – same as most people do, foreign policy elite or not, when they see the same homeless folks outside the office day after day.

It’s true that Americans don’t have a “lasting concern” for (say) Darfur in particular. I think Heather sums it up nicely: Americans want the U.S. to do its part. The ICG survey dovetails with many other studies that show that Americans often enthusiastically support a wide range of international interventions, as long as they don’t feel that the U.S. is being left to “go it alone” as “the world’s policeman” or designated sugar daddy. (Check out the indispensable PIPA website, for specifics on this and other topics.)

Another take on “lasting concern” might be that Americans aren’t willing to “stay the course.” It depends on the course, of course (yecch). But the 2004 election suggests to many of us that the American public’s threshold of pain and frustration may be too high, not too low, if one has to choose. Yeah, Americans let their leaders get away with a lot.

Myth #3: Especially on international humanitarian issues, overwhelming majorities are needed to get anything done.

That is, 38 percent support for action in Darfur won’t cut it. Actually, all you need is a few hundred thousand, a few million tops, provided they’re the right million. Who has saved funding for AIDS in Africa several times when the White House wanted to cut it or roll back its promised increases? Not MoveOn’s millions… a few thousand activist evangelicals, and a few dozen of their leaders who were willing to hold the White House’s feet to the fire. If this poll were done on southern Sudan, I’m not confident the numbers would look very different. Yet the Administration put tremendous resources into getting a peace deal there. Why? Because some of their core voters cared a great deal. Ditto trafficking in persons. Heck, does anyone really think overwhelming majorities of the citizenry are in favor of CAFTA?

ICG commissioned this poll to help draw some attention to these issues. It’s the perennial line foreign-affairs advocates get on the Hill: “my constituents never mention foreign policy issues to me.” But they don’t actually need a mass national movement – though one would sure be nice. They need a targeted national movement. Suppose you commissioned a Sudan poll among evangelicals… or a CAFTA poll in swing states… might be interesting.

Yeah, I’m kind of bitter about this one. But I won’t belabor it, since Heather has covered it. Besides, this debate started in a different place, with Derek’s controversial claim that “doing the right thing is also wildly popular!” That seemed to evoke images of crowds marching in the streets and chanting, “Thank you, President Bush, for intervening in Darfur!” Maybe “wildly” wasn’t the best choice of words. But, dammit, Derek was on to something.

To elaborate on one of Heather’s examples: why did George W. Bush spend so much time in his 2003 State of the Union address trumpeting his commitment to spend billions fighting AIDS in Africa? Sure, it made part of his base happy, but it made lots of people happy. Because Americans are pleased to hear, in Bush’s words, that this “nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature.” Who doesn’t want to live in a country that can do that, and better yet, actually does it?

Was Bush riding a groundswell of public concern about AIDS in Africa? Not hardly (never mind whether one can ride a groundswell). Did he find people begging to increase the foreign aid budget? No – typically most Americans think the foreign aid budget should be decreased, mostly because they think it is much larger than it actually is. So, was Bush exercising courageous leadership? Nope. He was in tune with the values that Americans consistently say they want the U.S. to stand for. Wouldn’t it have been nice if he had actually followed through on his promise without needing “help” from those evangelicals?

Myth #4: Looking at polls to make policy is something done by nasty, unprincipled politicians.  Real leaders with convictions don’t use or need polling.

Making decisions based on your conscience and intellect is principled. Refusing to use tools at your disposal to inform your intellect before making decisions is… not very bright.

I agree with that, but I will add something else. “Going against the polls” because you know something that most people don’t, or see consequences that they haven’t considered, is consistent with representative democracy. Going against fundamental American values is not. I think the normative importance of the polls is in helping to reveal those values, what Americans want the U.S. to be working toward, even if they don’t know how it should do the work. Those expressed values will be naïve, at times, but still worthy of attention. I won’t write about instrumental uses of the polls right now.

Myth #5: Besides, you can get polls to say anything you want anyway.

This one’s for you, Mark.

Let’s put this one in perspective. Public opinion polls are murky and ambiguous, like budget projections, or like satellite reconnaissance photographs. This is not an argument for ignoring them, it’s an argument for looking closely. Can you get a poll to say that the U.S. should attack Canada, or imprison all the millionaires, or rename Washington D.C. “Maoville”? Conceivably, if the question is sufficiently distorted, but it wouldn’t take a “polling expert” to spot the problem. Can President Bush get a poll to say that he has the right idea on Social Security “reform”? Heaven knows he has tried.

For around 70 years now, public opinion polls – not always, but sometimes – have served to rebut what “everyone knows” that just isn’t true about the American people. Lately, what everyone seems to know is that Americans don’t care about anyone or anything beyond the confines of their nation or perhaps their television. It just isn’t so. And if we use it as an excuse for silence on Darfur, then shame on us.

Divest from Sudan Posted by Derek Chollet

Suzanne has provided a fairly exhaustive list of what, short of military intervention, the United States can do -- and should do -- to end the slaughter in Darfur.  It’s right to avoid the either-or trap between massive military intervention or doing nothing.  With the demands our military faces right now in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don’t support a massive American military intervention.  And I also don’t believe that that’s what is needed (in fact, my impression is that the African countries don’t want one).  But there’s a lot we can do now to help the AU force – this would involve military assistance and some kind of intervention, preferably through NATO, but not a major troop commitment.

Thinking about what other tools are available, I’d like to draw attention to one more idea that we should all get behind.  Again, this comes from the good folks at the International Crisis Group:  Americans should demand that colleges and universities divest themselves from companies that are operating in Sudan.  Harvard did so earlier this year, and other major universities are being pressured to follow suit.  Last month, ICG’s John Prendergast and Harvard’s Samantha Power sent a letter to 100 university presidents urging them to examine their portfolios for links to Sudan and divest.  Student groups have sprouted up and have done good work (the group STAND -- Students Taking Action Now: Darfur – has 80 chapters nationwide), but with school out for the summer, progressives should work to pick up the slack.      

And a few weeks ago, the Illinois legislature took this one step further: it passed a law to make Illinois the first state to prohibit doing business with Sudan.  Illinois’ five pension systems have about $1 billion invested in 32 companies that work in Sudan, which this bill will put an end to.  It will also prohibit the state from investing in foreign government bonds of Sudan and investing in companies doing business in or with Sudan. 

Illinois might be the first, but it is not alone: A related measure has passed the New Jersey House but is bottled up in the Senate, California’s legislature has a version bouncing around, and just last week, legislation was offered in Ohio’s state Senate proposing something similar.   

I think this is an inspired idea, one that deserves greater attention (a place to start is here).  Imagine if more states followed Illinois’ lead?  For those of us who believe that we should be doing much more to end the genocide in Darfur, the divestment option is a two-fer: it puts meaningful pressure on the Sudanese government to stop its support of the janjaweed militia, and it keeps the political fires stoked here at home for the U.S. government to do more. 

Top 10 Things To Do for Darfur Short of U.S. Military Intervention Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Kevin asks whether we ought to be prepared to send in armed troops to stop genocide. My answer is yes, provided we think we can get the job done and there isn’t an equivalent or better alternative to get the killing stopped. Given the weaknesses of the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed, I assume the operation would ordinarily be eminently doable.

But one of the worst things about our single-handed Iraq invasion is that for the first time in recent memory a legitimate question can be raised about whether the U.S. is over-extended to the point where we cannot assume new military obligations. As a political matter, Iraq has also made it tough to contemplate mounting another challenging military intervention. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but it does suggest that we won’t.  Progressives need to look beyond the a false dichotomy of either proposing a military intervention that is a political non-starter, or keeping a low profile on the Darfur tragedy out of an abashed sense that we don't know how to fully solve it.

If we right away did everything possible short of sending combat troops, we’d save a lot of lives, and make an eventual U.S. military role more feasible (and maybe even less necessary). I am no expert on Darfur, but those that are suggest that these are some places to start:

1. Put the heat on NATO to buttress the AU – The US, UN, EU and NATO have been passing the hot potato when it comes to taking action in Sudan. NATO has its limitations, but its better positioned than any other organization to become the focal point for partnering with the AU to try to make that mission effective. The U.S. should take the lead in pushing the alliance to prove its relevance by getting involved. NATO should take the lead in negotiating terms with the AU, instead of waiting until broader help is asked for. This month’s G-8 meeting in Scotland would be a good opportunity to make the case (though other G-8 members may turn the tables wanting support for their anti-poverty plans in Africa).

2. Put NATO troops on the ground – It will be impossible to turn around Darfur without putting substantial numbers of competent and equipped troops on the ground quickly. That’s an impossibility for the AU, so partnering effectively with them means sending in a portion of the 17,000 troops NATO supposedly has at the ready. All else under discussion – airlift, training, advisers – are half-measures. But in doing this, we need to realize that a NATO "bridge" until the AU is ready to take over may wind up lasting a long while.

3. Enforce a no-fly zone – The need for a no-fly zone to stop air raids on civilians has been discussed for upwards of a year.It was contained in the Darfur Accountability Act, which the Administration opposed.

4. Making it clear that preventing genocide trumps intelligence cooperation – The Sudanese government must love the fact that the U.S. is being reported to have toned down its outcry on Darfur so as not to interfere with Khartoum’s help in the fight against terrorism.The Administration has never disavowed this, and needs to if its other efforts to end the genocide are to be taken seriously and attract support.

5. Impose sanctions and an arms embargo – These are also parts of the moribund Darfur Accountability Act. Particularly if they targeted core sectors like the oil industry, sanctions would demonstrate that the U.S. means business, and would raise the cost of the Sudanese government’s indifference. In addition to full implementation of bilateral sanctions, the U.S. should push the UN Security Council to press ahead with its stalled sanctions effort. (Sudan’s defeat in today’s World Cup qualifier made me think sports sanctions should be considered too – they worked in South Africa).

Sudan - Don't Give Up So Fast Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Kevin Drum questions whether there's any truth to Derek's contention that the American public supports greater action on Darfur, and whether there's any option on the table for ending the crisis short of sending in American troops, something the public is hesitant to countenance.

As the resident night owl, I offer a few thoughts in response, with the hope that Derek adds some more in the AM:

- While Kevin's right that in the Zogby/International Crisis Group poll on U.S. public opinion toward Darfur, just 28% of Americans described themselves as "very aware" of the crisis, when the crisis was described to them large majorities nonetheless supported action: 70% thought the international community should respond and 84% thought the U.S. should use its "military assets" (short of troops) to stop the tragedy unfolding.  Under the circumstances, with the military stretched to the breaking point in a far-flung conflict that many Americans view as endless and unnecessary, its remarkable that fully 38% of survey respondents do support putting U.S. soldiers on the ground.  After all, that's 20% more than said they know what's really going on in Sudan.  Were it not for our entanglement in Iraq, that number might be a lot higher.

- Second, there are alternatives to U.S. boots on the ground.  Kevin is right that the Darfur mission is highlighting the AU's weaknesses in terms of capabilities, equipment and funding.   The most obvious short-term solution is a hefty NATO backstop to an AU force, likely going beyond the logistics, transport and training they are providing today to include actual troops in country (over the long-term, we ought to be thinking about measures like those outlined here, including a long-term investment in developing capable military leadership for a standing AU force).  This is what Derek, Madeleine Albright and others have been urging.  A large amount of U.S. energy has been expended over the last decade in sustaining and expanding NATO in preparation for a post-Cold War role.   With Europe chaotic but essential secure and peaceful, right now its hard to imagine a better use of the capabilities amassed than Darfur.  It's also a chance for the many European countries that are not entangled in Iraq to share some of the burden of keeping the global peace, something they profess willingness to do.  Building consensus for a robust NATO mission won't be easy, but the U.S. is obligated to try.

- A third option is stepped up UN peacekeeping.  The UNSC voted to establish a 10,000 person strong peacekeeping mission in Sudan back in March, but the peacekeepers have only just begun to deploy.  The UN forces will share some of the AU limitations, including lack of rapid-deployment and sophisticated airlift capabilities.  Over the long-term, a standing UN force would be one way to remedy these shortcomings, and strengthen the alternatives to U.S. intervention.  There are also political constraints on UN involvement, including most notably China's ties to the Sudanese regime.    But the Chinese are not above the kind of pressure that global acknowledgement of a genocidal crisis brings to bear.

So its not enough to throw up our hands even if we reject U.S. ground troops as a serious option.  There are alternatives.  Its the Administration's job to make them work, and our job to push them to do so.

A dollar short for Africa Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A while ago we here made a list of 10 things the Bush Administration could do with no change in policy that would help improve America's image around the world .  Number 1 was getting behind Britain's initiative to dramatically up aid to Africa, making good on commitments the G8 adopted starting in 2001.

As part of the very same press conference with Thabo Mbeki in which, as Derek discusses below, Bush called the situation in Darfur genocide, the President also make clear he has no intention of being more generous to Africa because "it doesn't fit our budgetary process." 

Meanwhile the EU's original 15 members agreed Tuesday to increase official aid for immunizations, sanitation, education, and other programs for the poor to the equivalent of 0.7 percent of GDP by 2015.  The 10 newest EU members pledged to ''strive for'' 0.33 percent.  That's more than double the .16 of GDP the U.S. currently spends.

The purpose of Mbeki's trip to the U.S. was, at least in large part, to try to build support for the anti-poverty meeting in preparation for an upcoming G8 confab in Scotland.  While Mbeki tried to put a positive spin on the President's response, the absence of any new commitments means he was pretty much shut out.

The problem is not that Britain wants to shower aid willy-nilly.  They too have demanded strict accountability and anti-corruption measures as part of their proposals.  In fact, the Bush Administration's failure to support the UK is becoming a source of real friction between Bush and Blair.  Blair is considering imposing a tax to fund the program, a concept that's unimaginable here.

The EU is in chaos, but has still managed to agree that it wants to be on the forefront of the global battle against poverty, motivated partly by morality and partly by pragmatic concerns about the chaos and spillover effects that desperation breeds. 

The Administration has made the promotion of freedom a centerpiece of its policy, but won't put up the money to help lift up countries for which the biggest threats to freedom are disease, hunger, and poor education.   As the EU moves forward without us, a measure that could have boosted America's image will now hurt it. 

The end of today's press conference was a recitation of tired arguments on Zimbabwe.  Bush decried Mugabe's abuses and reckless ransacking of his country, concluding that "it's a problem."  Mbeki tripped over his own claim that the regime needs "support . . . to overcome these problems," almost saying that its the opposition that deserves the help.  Meanwhile, the despot has been rounding up tens of thousands of political opponents, burning their homes and running others out of the country's big towns.   

It's not too late for Bush to change his mind in advance of the July G-8 Summit.  Why not offer the aid, but link it to a genuine partnership on promoting democracy in Africa - including an end to Mbeki and others' support for Mugabe.  Zimbabwe now seems to be on its way to complete mayhem, which could necessitate lengthy and costly international intervention and recovery effort.  Given the choice between billions more in aid or standing by a friend who is starving his own people, African leaders might budge.

Missed Opportunity Posted by Derek Chollet

In today's Oval Office press availability with South African President Mbeki, President Bush uttered, apparently for the first time, that what is happening in Darfur is genocide (he had only "said" such in a written statement issued last year). He was also asked what he thought of the poll discussed below showing the American people's overwhelming support for stronger action to end the genocide in Darfur.  Here's the exchange in full:

Q:   And, Mr. President, on the issue of Darfur, Sudan, a new survey came out by the Zogby International Poll that finds 84 percent of Americans polled feel that the U.S. should not tolerate an extremist government committing such attacks and should use its military assets, short of using military combat troops on the ground to protect civilians there.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me first say something. We are working with NATO to make sure that we are able to help the AU put combat troops there. And as a part of that, I believe a transport plane of ours, for example, will be a part of this mission.

I think later on today I'm going to speak to the Prime Minister of Canada, who has also been very strong about dealing with Darfur, and I will thank him for his contributions.

Ok.  Thanks are in order.  But how about asking for more?  Seems like a missed opportunity.  In addition to Mbeki and the Candian PM, Bush also talked about Darfur today with the NATO Secretary General.  Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick is on his way to Darfur now.  Let's hope this is the beginning of something...

Darfur: Good Policy is Good Politics Posted by Derek Chollet

It’s not just us foreign policy wonks who believe that the U.S. must take stronger action in Darfur – we now know that by vast majorities, the American people agree.  Today the International Crisis Group and the polling firm Zogby International Opinion released a revealing, and important, new survey showing that the American people know what is going on in Darfur, and support strong action to end the genocide.  What’s reassuring is that this support cuts across party and religious lines.  It shows what I have long believed: that more often than not, good policy is good politics.

Some of the highlights:

• 84% of respondents said the U.S. should not tolerate an extremist government committing such attacks, and should use its military assets, short of inserting U.S. combat troops on the ground to protect civilians, to help bring them to a halt (significantly, this includes 83% Republicans and 85% Democrats).

• When asked about specific measures the U.S. might take, an overwhelming 91% of respondents say the U.S. should cooperate with the International Criminal Court -- to which, of course, the U.S. does not belong -- to help bring to justice those accused of crimes against humanity. Strong majorities also support tough sanctions on Sudanese leaders who control the militias (81%).

• Concerning NATO's role – an idea we have championed here – 80% support creating a no-fly zone over Darfur, and 76% support NATO logistical and troop support for an expanded African peacekeeping force. However, support falls quickly away at the prospect of U.S. military action; just 38% of likely voters think the U.S. should send troops under its own flag (which is not surprising).

Congrats to ICG and Zogby for conducting such a poll (ICG’s advocacy and analysis have been critical to keeping attention on Darfur and what to do about it).  These findings deserve wide attention  -- and should serve as a call for greater action.  Imagine that: doing the right thing is also wildly popular! 

NATO to Darfur Posted by Derek Chollet

Over the weekend Kofi Annan went to Sudan, where he visited Darfur.  It is amazing – no, appalling – that almost a year after then-Secretary of State Powell called what is happening in Darfur a genocide, that the situation remains, as Annan put it after his visit, “heart wrenching” and “not a situation that can be acceptable for long.”  Over 180,000 killed and two million driven from their homes?  In my book, that’s a situation that’s long past acceptable.

The world – and that includes the Bush Administration -- recognizes that Darfur is a grave humanitarian crisis.  But it still has not found the will or the way to stop the atrocities.  The African Union (AU) has several thousand peacekeepers on the ground and has pledged more, but these won’t be deployed for some time.  In the meantime, people are dying everyday.

Here at DA we have talked about the need to act in Darfur, and fast.  One proposal that has been floating around for awhile would be for NATO to intervene, at the least assisting with logistical support, intelligence, and airlift capacity for the African Union troops (which needs help in all these areas), as well as possibly inserting NATO troops as a “bridging force” until the AU troops can get there.

The case for NATO in Darfur is slowly gaining momentum.  The State Department has been quietly working on this for weeks.  And the effort got an important boost last week by a diverse group of former officials, including Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, and former foreign ministers Robin Cook of Britain, Lamberto Dini of Italy, Lloyd Axworthy of Canada, Ana Palacio of Spain, Erik Derycke of Belgium, and Surin Pitsuwan of Thailand.  They wrote a statement that was published in the International Herald Tribune, calling for NATO to make a greater commitment to Darfur, including the possibility of troops on the ground.

The statement is worth reading in full, if nothing else for how it places the international community’s (in)action in Darfur within the larger context of UN reform and the emerging norm of the “responsibility to protect.”  But the key sections are these:

“….Because the AU force is currently too small to cover an area the size of France and lacks critical logistical capacities, the militias continue to burn villages and besiege refugees in their camps.

….NATO should immediately provide the AU with helicopters (already offered by Canada); command, control and support capabilities; and strategic and tactical lift. Drawing on its Response Force, which is now at its initial operational capacity of 17,000, NATO should put a brigade-sized element at the disposal of the United Nations to augment the AU force until it can build up sufficient strength of its own.

In addition, NATO should seek authority from the Security Council for a new Chapter VII resolution establishing a no-flight zone over Darfur, which NATO aircraft would enforce. Although some states on the Security Council, notably China, have opposed tougher measures on the grounds that the Sudanese government should be given time to resolve the conflict in Darfur through a new political process, it remains an open question as to whether these governments would vote against an action that was aimed at saving lives.

We applaud NATO's commitment to the ongoing crisis in Darfur but we also believe that this successful military alliance, strengthened by the warrant of Security Council legitimacy, could do much more to bring a halt to Darfur's horrific humanitarian crisis. The ever-popular mantra ‘never again’ has to mean more than expressing political sentiment and issuing lukewarm resolutions that fail to stop the violence. It is not too late for meaningful action.”

This is tough stuff, to be sure.  Last week the U.S. and European countries agreed to provide critical assistance -- including $300 million to fund a larger AU force, air transport, armored personnel carriers, troop transport trucks, and training.  These are very positive steps, but much more is needed.  For example, the money pledged still falls nearly $150 million short of what the AU says it needs.

With the U.S. military over-extended as it is, we would need to rely mostly on the Europeans for further support, especially troops -- although, significantly, as Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick explained last week, the U.S. has already agreed to airlift the Rwandan contingent of the AU force, help build communications facilities and assist with training.  But I believe greater American leadership could be decisive.  Zoellick has made Sudan one of his highest priorities -- he has already been to Darfur once, and is going there again this week.

Next month, the President will join other world leaders at the G-8 summit in Scotland.  One of the main items on the agenda will be Africa, which Blair has made a theme of the summit.  It’s guaranteed that they’ll be a lot of earnest talk.  But for a meaningful outcome, President Bush should make greater NATO involvement in Darfur his priority.   

Sudan and What We Stand For Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Holocaust remembrance day seems like as good a moment as any to reflect on why the Administration seems to have abandoned the effort to curb genocide in Darfur. Darfur has posed a difficult problem for a long time. Brad Plumer, writing for MotherJones.com has a good description of why every option for action is problematic. 

So what is the Administration doing? Essentially, nothing.