Soapbox
Darfur: What should the U.S. do?
 
by Bill Fletcher Jr.--NNPA Columnist
Any of us who have been outraged by the documented genocide in the western region of the Sudan known as Darfur have been confronted with a major dilemma: what do we ask of the US government in such a situation?
If, like me, you sat in horrified silence watching the film Hotel Rwanda, you asked yourself how could the world have remained quiet in the face of such an historic atrocity (close to one million murdered in 90 days)? Yet, here we are again, facing mass atrocities carried out against the people of Darfur by the Khartoum government of Al-Bashir and their notorious allies known as the Janjaweed and so little has been done.
Many people of good will have turned to the Bush Administration and demanded some form of action. Surprise and excitement was voiced when former Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Darfur and enunciated the word "genocide" in describing what was unfolding. Surprise turned to cynicism when this pronouncement was followed by little action.
Herein lies the dilemma. What does one ask of an administration that lied us into a war and occupation of Iraq; threatens Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and North Korea with possible military action; works to humiliate and undermine the United Nations; ignored Somalia’s hellish clan-based civil wars until it was revealed that an Islamist movement was becoming influential; has spoken out of both sides of its mouth with regard to fully funding HIV/AIDS treatment and research; and mocks the entire notion of global warming? It’s not as if the word of this administration is worth much, except, perhaps, to its corporate allies.
I am not trying to be cynical. Rather, I am suggesting that the attitude of Black America toward what we ask of this administration must be coldly focused in light of their real world mischief.
Therefore, I cannot in good conscience suggest that U.S. troops should be deployed in the Sudan. Not only would this give great ammunition to the Khartoum government to rally against "US imperialism," but when one looks at the record one must ask what would result from such a deployment?
There are some things that the Bush Administration can do; the only question is whether they are prepared to actually do them. Africans must resolve the Darfur crisis. Any suggestion of NATO troops or U.S. troops entering in and forcing a solution will simply not work.
Leadership for the resolution of the crisis must come from the African Union. Admittedly, the African Union is weak; indeed, in many respects it is just getting off the ground.
Precisely for that reason, its ongoing efforts need to be supported. If the Bush administration wishes to help, then let them support the African Union financially and diplomatically. Provide the AU with sufficient logistical support to deploy more peacekeepers.
Provide assistance for the refugees currently living in neighboring Chad, and those internally displaced within the Sudan.
I wish that I had confidence that the Bush Administration could play a positive role in international affairs.
All evidence points to the contrary. Thus, my conclusion tends to be that which is the first instruction to physicians: "do no harm!"
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Washington, DC-based writer and activist involved with labor and international issues. A former president of TransAfrica Forum, he is now a Visiting Professor in Political Science at Brooklyn College-CUNY. He can be reached at papaq54@hotmail.com. |
