Darfur

Between April and July of 1994 an estimated 800,000 to 1,070,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred in Rwanda by extremist Hutu groups. Despite intelligence of the impending disaster before the killing began, and international news media coverage of the violence, most of the international community including France, Belgium, Germany, the U.K., and the United States declined to intervene. Bill Clinton characterized his inaction as the "biggest regret of my administration."

The Rwandan conflict was not only committed by non-state actors, there is ample evidence that the killing was well organized, by the time the killing started, the militia in Rwanda was 30,000 strong, some militia members were able to acquire guns by completing requisition forms. According to Linda Melvern, in Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwanda Genocide and the International Community, convicted war criminal Rwandan Prime Minister Kambanda, revealed in his testimony before the ICTR, that the genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings and that "one cabinet minister said she was personally in favor of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over."

The United Nations has shown itself to be ineffectual in dealing with international/intranational conflict resolution. The United States should use its power to build consensus and bring parties into a coalition to stop genocide such as occurred in Rwanda. Unfortunately Bill Clinton's administration and Congress was reeling from the failure of its mission in Somalia that had occurred only months earlier in late 1993. The failures of that endeavor, however worthy it may have been, distracted the administration, congress, and the people of the United States from intervening in Rwanda.

Now we have a similar situation in Darfur. The United Nations is still ineffectual and unable to intervene in Darfur, the United States is reeling from the failure of its mission in Iraq and other countries who are in a position to take a leadership role will not without direction, financially and physically, from the United States. Estimated deaths in Darfur range from 50,000 to 400,000, with consensus hovering around the latter number. Once again, the Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided arms and assistance and has participated in joint attacks with the Janjaweed. The United States has declared that genocide has taken place, but the United Nations continues not to do so.

Now from the United Nations, comes this call from Kofi Annan, "a high-level international meeting later this week to discuss the peacekeeping crisis in Sudan's Darfur...The UN has offered $77m to help the AU - but needs Sudan's approval to change the structure of the force...The UN Security Council has passed a resolution for 20,000 troops to be sent to Darfur but Sudan has refused to let the UN take control, saying that would infringe its sovereignty."

A nation loses its right to sovereignty once it cannot provide basic security for its citizens, and certainly relinquishes any claim to sovereignty once it supports groups that engage in ethnic cleansing within its borders. Not intervening in Sudan because of its governments claim to sovereignty is a farce. I do not presume to know the ability of the United States military, but it seems that the quagmire of Iraq and the development of a plan to rectify the situation drains all available resources, military and civilian. The misadventure, and the fact that it does not appear to be ending in the near-future, mean that most likely nothing will be done for Darfur unless another country takes the lead.