I wouldn’t normally just randomly link to stuff on the Guardian blog, but this one is quite important. The “ongoing genocide in Darfur” has been such a staple of Internet arguments over the morality of humanitarian intervention, the effectiveness of the United Nations, the unique moral awfulness of the European Unions etc etc, that it is easy to forget that this is actually a real place with a real war going on in it and that, as is surprisingly common in wars, the news does not stand still while you are writing your blog posts. The Sudanese government, who are villains right enough and who I am sure will face charges at the ICC in the future, are actually not the problem now; they are co-operating at the peace talks (peace talks? yes! and furthermore, they are being very capably supported by the USA! the USA? yes! apparently they do “the useless chit-chat of diplomacy” a lot better than they do wars!). At present, ill-informed comment in the developed world is potentially even worse than annoying; if it persuades the Darfurian rebel groups that the world is gearing up to decapitate the Khartoum regime, it’s actually dangerous.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 48 comments }
Brendan 05.03.06 at 9:08 am
The stuff about Darfur was always bullshit. Not that it’s not a serious issue and a major humanitarian catastrophe: it is. And should ‘something be done’? Absolutely.
But compare and contrast. When was the last time you read something about the various Congo wars (‘Africa’s world war 2’) or the psychotic actions of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda?
Even when the Darfur situation is discussed, as Daniel points out, it is grossly over simplified. For most of the right wing bloggers, this is a situation of crazy Muslims attacking good Christian folk. The Sudanese govt. (goes the story) are all Muslims, who helped Bin Laden, and besides they have our oil and the only question to be asked is ‘when do we go in?’
(NB before receiving lots of stupid posts, please note my wrath is aimed solely at navel gazing bloggers and the spineless media, not serious people actually attempting to solve the problems of the Sudan).
Daniel 05.03.06 at 9:09 am
The extraordinary thing is that most bloggers on the subject of Sudan appear to be significantly more militaristic than the Bush administration, which has actually played something of a blinder in helping to keep the peace negotiations on track.
P O'Neill 05.03.06 at 9:55 am
The other use of Darfur on the right has been the occasional Instasigh along the lines of “the left” being against military intervention before they were for it, as if anyone was proposing invading Khartoum.
Louis Proyect 05.03.06 at 10:00 am
Like Iraq, Sudan’s problems were built in from the beginning as British imperialism cobbled together two antagonistic groups into the kind of incipient failed state that Basil Davidson diagnosed in “Black Man’s Burden.” I have tried to provide some background on Sudanese history in a couple of film reviews:
Lost Boys of the Sudan:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/LostBoys.htm
Khartoum:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/mahdism.htm
Daniel Nexon 05.03.06 at 10:01 am
The Guardian story coheres well Alan Kuperman’s more general, and somewhat controversial, argument that humanitarian interventions — and the expectation that they might happen — set events in motion that lead to mass violence and genocide.
A basic version of the argument can be found here.
abb1 05.03.06 at 10:31 am
Ah, bravo, Mr. Kuperman.
joel turnipseed 05.03.06 at 11:05 am
Davies’ and Kuperman’s points are very well taken–and I’d add another point against interventions (while not ruling them out altogether) and that’s this: There’s something of a moral/psychological no-win situation when well-trained, well-equipped militaries of modern industrial nations fight against combatants they easily out-class in fighting power. Even if rules of engagement are followed, even if airpower and long-range artillery are held in check–that is, all possible steps are used to keep non-combatant deaths to an absolute minimum (and there’s no guarantee about this), the killing is going to be very lopsided. And this never looks good–to those whose country is being occupied, to third-party observers, and even, I would add, to those who must do the killing.
abb1 05.03.06 at 11:22 am
Yes, and a good example is the fiasco in Somalia 1993, where in “battle” of Mogadishu 18 US soldiers were killed and, of course, uncounted hundreds, probably thousands, of locals, militants and non-militants. We only remember the 18 US soldiers, of course.
soru 05.03.06 at 11:47 am
Do you think the idea that third world rebel movements might take account of western public opinion when deciding strategy is a principle that is generalisable?
lemuel pitkin 05.03.06 at 12:03 pm
Just to expand on Brendan’s point, my understanding is that there are also lots of awful things happening in Africa that could best be solved by clean water and vaccines rather than “interventions”. These never come up in these discussions, somehow, perhaps because so many of those involved are looking for morally spotless excuses for bombing someplace rather than ways of improving the lives of Africans.
Kevin Donoghue 05.03.06 at 12:28 pm
From the CIF post: Demanding “action” without ever saying what that “action” might be is the height of irresponsibility, and is almost always a marker of someone who has not troubled themselves to spend five minutes reading Sudan Watch to find out what is actually going on.
Indeed (as one such someone is wont to say). I don’t claim any expertise, but I found Gerard Prunier’s book Darfur: the Ambiguous Genocide a pretty helpful guide to the background.
Sebastian Holsclaw 05.03.06 at 1:18 pm
How do you reconcile “I am sure will face charges at the ICC in the future” with the certainly correct idea that the world is not gearing up to decapitate the Khartoum regime?
Daniel 05.03.06 at 2:16 pm
Not everyone in the Khartoum government will be guilty of war crimes.
jet 05.03.06 at 2:29 pm
Saying we shouldn’t bomb Sudan unless we bomb the Congo is ridiculous and simple-minded in the extreme. To force Sudan to stop paying, supplying, training, and providing air support for the Janjaweed, we would focus our attention on a single government (Khartoum). A somewhat straightforward problem.
In contrast, if we wanted to stop the fighting in the Congo, we’d have to include a plethora of governments, militias, and tribes. We’d be dealing with Zimbabwe, Zambia, Chad, Sudan, South African mercenaries and probably every man who could lift a machete.
On a side note, perhaps an economist here could help me out. What will be the long term economic impact for Africa if ethanol in the US starts raising grain prices? Will higher grain prices help Africa or hurt Africa? And I guess this question hinges on how underutilized arable land in Africa is.
Sebastian Holsclaw 05.03.06 at 3:14 pm
“Not everyone in the Khartoum government will be guilty of war crimes.”
That is most definitely not an answer. Those high up in the government and most definitely guilty of war crimes aren’t going anywhere so long as the current Khartoum government is in power. And it has clearly shown a willingness to exercise brutality in holding on. So again, what makes you think they will face war crimes trials in front of the ICC?
abb1 05.03.06 at 3:38 pm
A lot of those high up in various governments will never ever face war crimes trials. Once you get up there, that’s pretty much a license to commit war crimes, not to mention various other crimes. Why not the US government or British or Russian government; what’s so special about Khartoum government?
Brendan 05.03.06 at 5:03 pm
‘A somewhat straightforward problem.’
To imply that the problems of Sudan are ‘simple’ is of the same school of thought that told us that solving the problems of Iraq would be ‘simple’: ‘all we have to do is get rid of Saddam and everything will be fine.’
We were told. Repeatedly.
Maynard Handley 05.03.06 at 5:53 pm
”
What will be the long term economic impact for Africa if ethanol in the US starts raising grain prices? Will higher grain prices help Africa or hurt Africa? And I guess this question hinges on how underutilized arable land in Africa is.
”
Africa’s future will be determined by Africa.
High oil prices mean more money going to swiss bank account, low prices mean less money, both have little effect on the average guy.
As for ethanol
(1) if this gets serious, it’ll be based on cellulosic ethanol, not grain ethanol, so grain prices don’t really matter
(2) the US/Canada (and I would guess South America) have the land to grow what they need, so the factor of interest is Europe. I would guess that
* simply shipping biomass to Europe (as opposed to refined ethanol) is not cost effective and that
* both the agriculture necessary and the conversion infrastructure (distilleries or whatever you call them)
require some degree of dispersion. In other words the value in the system is no longer one oil well + pipeline that you can surround with an army; to generate it you have to have some sort of nationwide infrastructure including roads, electricity and law.
OK, so the optimist would say, great, that means that outsiders and insiders can no longer siphon off the wealth so easily — there’s a great future ahead.
I, on the other hand, say those necessary things aren’t going to happen in my lifetime, and while Africa dithers about this in the standard African way — excuses about how something or another [growing some crop, using large farms with paid laborers rather than tiny family plots, using tractors rather than bulls] is not traditional, excuses about why it is necessary to apply this or that incentive-destroying tax, excuses about why it’s more important to buy more helicopters this year than to build some roads to transport the biomass — the production of the relevant biomass will take off in Russia and the various ‘stans, and Africa will once again be late to the party and weepy at how the whole world is so mean to her.
Maynard Handley 05.03.06 at 6:01 pm
(Stupid Guardian system requires registration, then won’t allow me to register, so I’m posting here.)
Daniel, in your article you included this throw-away statement: “This has had the effect of gradually prising Sudan out of China’s sphere of influence, which is obviously a big geopolitical gain”
I know your point was to comment in the issue of intervention on humanitarian vs other grounds, but, to the extent you have any knowledge on the subject, I’d love to see a post of what you believe to be driving China’s foreign policy in a place like Africa.
Presumably one aspect of it is not to criticize governments on grounds that could then be pointed at China, but what’s the larger picture beyond that? Was China interested on solving this situation, keeping it going (because they were supplying weapons perhaps), or just didn’t care (on the assumption that it wouldn’t affect the flow of oil). Do they believe that no-one sees them as a force for good, so why even try, or do they simply not believe in soft power?
neil 05.03.06 at 6:39 pm
Daneil, could you calrify just who it is that you believe are “destructively cynical about the diplomatic effort” and “broadly in favour of more military interventions in the world”.
One comment assumes you are aiming at the Eustonites.
I actually agree with most of your artilce but get the feeling that you might be just a bit guilty of what you accuse others of in your last sentance.
emmanuel goldstein 05.03.06 at 6:42 pm
Maynard:
Longish term, China looks interested in cultural power: they’re paying for language schools, cultural exchanges, etc. Short term, their policy is indistinguishable from ‘crude mercantilism’ as the Torygraph had it the other day.
traffic in stereotypes much?
Daniel 05.03.06 at 7:07 pm
I’d love to see a post of what you believe to be driving China’s foreign policy in a place like Africa
It would probably be just sub-Economist bum-talking so I’ll do it here instead. I think China probably just has a policy of scooping up client states on the basis that they will come in useful some time in the future. Therefore, anyone who is “beyond the pale” to the Americans, will quite likely find themselves with a calling card from the Chinese. This is certainly the game that they always used to play in Africa in the Cold War; they were great ones for building cultural centres, all of which appeared to come from the same set of plans. It so happened that they appeared to be playing the opposite game to George Clooney; encouraging Khartoum to believe that they could respond to a secession movement with genocidal violence and not suffer the consequences. We are obviously a little bit light on “consequences” ourselves at the moment but I have hopes for the future.
Daneil, could you calrify just who it is that you believe are “destructively cynical about the diplomatic effort†and “broadly in favour of more military interventions in the worldâ€.
Partly the Euston mob but not by any means exclusively them; there is an unattractive cynicism about diplomacy all over the political spectrum. The moment that Bob Zoellick showed up there was no shortage of people who suddenly started believing that the peace talks couldn’t possibly work or be in good faith because Zoellick was there.
Daniel 05.03.06 at 7:12 pm
(also, on a lot of what has happened in Darfur, I would guess that I am fundamentally in agreement with the text of the Euston Manifesto, although not with the I’ve-got-a-cardboard-box-on-my-head-and-I’m-a-tank-commander element among its signatories who think that the most important thing that has ever happened in Darfur is that in a speech in 2004 Colin Powell used the word “genocide” and the EU didn’t.)
Daniel Nexon 05.03.06 at 8:10 pm
With respect to “what’s China up to.” My sense is that there are two big arguments on the table.
One is daniel’s hypothesis: the PRC is snapping up clients because that’s what a rising power does, particularly if the behavior matches existing foreign-policy habits. Some–including a PhD student at Georgetown–put a darker spin on these activities: they think the PRC is actively engaged in building ties, arms transfers, and other activities designed to increase the future costs of US power projection.
The other is that all this stuff is driven by (domestic) economic concerns–and even the personal enrichment of relatives of party officials. The PRC relationship with Sudan, for example, is clearly about oil. There’s nothing much different about what they’re doing with pariah regimes as what they’re doing in Indonesia, in Latin America, and elsewhere. Some very, very smart experts on Chinese foreign policy even say that there isn’t any grand strategy, and that any appearance of one can be chalked up to coincidence.
Maynard Handley 05.03.06 at 9:09 pm
”
…and Africa will once again be late to the party and weepy at how the whole world is so mean to her
traffic in stereotypes much?
”
So Emmanuel, how large a fraction of your investments do you have in African stocks and government bonds? Bright fellow like you, believes that Africa has great changes ahead of it, would surely relish the chance to pick up some very low-priced financial instruments that no-one else has much faith in. After all, I can’t imagine that you’d be so shallow as to say one set of things in public but hold different views when it comes to something that actually matters like your money.
jet 05.03.06 at 10:55 pm
Brendan,
Would blocking all Sudanese oil tankers be that difficult or have to last very long before the government decided killing the non-arabs in Darfur wasn’t worth it? Would the new US bases just East of Sudan make it so difficult to shoot down Sudanese military aircraft operating over Darfur? The Khartoum government is incredibly vulnerable via its oil exports. Why doesn’t the world capitalize on this to stop a genocide? This isn’t some complicated scheme like Iraq, this is simple quid pro quo that doesn’t cost the Khartoum anything but face.
Dan Simon 05.03.06 at 11:03 pm
At present, ill-informed comment in the developed world is potentially even worse than annoying; if it persuades the Darfurian rebel groups that the world is gearing up to decapitate the Khartoum regime, it’s actually dangerous.
That’s right–if the MSB (mainstream blogosphere) weren’t so pathologically blinded by Bashir-hatred, they’d notice some of the good news coming out of Darfur, and stop this endless drumbeat of negativism about the outcome of American diplomacy there. Don’t they realize that their cynicism is giving aid and comfort to the enemy? That the Darfurian “rebels” are simply terrorists who don’t want peace so much as total victory, with all its bloody consequences? That slowly but surely, the Sudanese government is uniting the country behind its moderate, pluralistic platform, and against the extremist Darfurian “dead-enders”? That the Sudanese want to withdraw the Janjaweed, and restore local government–and that the continuing (and increasingly unpopular) rebel insurgency is the only obstacle in the way?
I guess they just consider partisanship more important than basic decency….
DaveC 05.04.06 at 1:12 am
For most of the right wing bloggers, this is a situation of crazy Muslims attacking good Christian folk
No, the Christian folk in the south of Sudan were protected by the “Sudan Peace Act”. Not that you give a damn, because you can’t bash Republicans or Christians with this unfortunate fact. Look it up sometime.
DaveC 05.04.06 at 1:18 am
I guess they just consider partisanship more important than basic decency
You’re a jerk too, Dan. “Sudan Peace Act”. Look that up. The Christians and the animists in the south were still being sold into chattel slavery in 1999 and 2000. You didn’t care about that then. That got fixed and you didn’t acknowledge it, because it doesn’t suit your political preferences.
Daniel 05.04.06 at 2:20 am
Dan: yeh, good joke. (the analogy is to those fools who whine about us all not cheerleading for Iraq, in case anyone is worrying). I promise you that if there were live peace talks in Iraq I would be saying exactly the same thing. In fact on a couple of occasions I have said exactly the same thing to people who I thought were trying to convince the Iraqi insurgents that they had a large segment of Western public opinion on their side (I seem to remember saying that George Galloway should have been thrown in jail for doing this). In any case, I’m not asking people to shut up altogether wrt Darfur; I’m just asking them to have a clue what they’re talking about first.
Jet: (responding to this point by point because all of these views are commonly held and it’s a prime example of what I consider to be dangerous).
Would blocking all Sudanese oil tankers be that difficult or have to last very long before the government decided killing the non-arabs in Darfur wasn’t worth it?
This wouldn’t be a workable solution because the Khartoum government’s aims in Darfur aren’t to “kill the non-Arabs”. The JEM are Islamists and mainly Arabs and they are about 1/3 of the Darfur rebels. What happened in Sudan is the common template that a weak government was faced with a secession movement and responded with genocidal violence. The genocidal violence has a racial element to it because Khartoum recruited irregular troops from the self-identified “Arab” areas, but racial genocide is not actually the government’s aim in Darfur. Since it is faced with an existential threat to the integrity of Sudan as a country (which may not be sustainable anyway, but Khartoum doesn’t believe that), it is quite likely that Khartoum would keep on fighting, genocidally, to stop Darfur from seceding to the last drop of blood or oil, whichever ran out first. So no, I don’t think an economic blockade would have worked.
Also, it would be difficult because those tankers are not in general owned by us, and anything we don’t buy, China would. Unless we are able to get China to agree to a blockade (unlikely) or to interdict Chinese shipping (which some might see as a bit provocative), we can’t.
Would the new US bases just East of Sudan make it so difficult to shoot down Sudanese military aircraft operating over Darfur?
Those bases aren’t all that useful; the French bases in Chad are much nearer and have figured in all the plans proposed for a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone could have helped substantially in preventing the Sudanese government from giving air support to the Janjawiid, but it wouldn’t have stopped the Janjawiid themselves (a negotiated no-fly zone has been maintained in Darfur for the last year). This would have cost a hell of a lot of money and not necessarily done all that much good; the money would probably be better spent in providing logistic support to the AU, which is what we did.
The Khartoum government is incredibly vulnerable via its oil exports. Why doesn’t the world capitalize on this to stop a genocide? This isn’t some complicated scheme like Iraq, this is simple quid pro quo that doesn’t cost the Khartoum anything but face
Basically because the world needs the oil. And on the other hand, as I’ve noted above, losing the three provinces of Darfur would involve losing a lot more than face for Sudan; it would be a big territory loss and would create a potentially hostile state to the northwest when it already had one to the south.
Brendan 05.04.06 at 2:39 am
Jet
what daniel said.
rollo 05.04.06 at 3:22 am
“Basically because the world needs the oil” – to do what?
Continue this headlong rush toward extinction?
Or isn’t that happening where you live?
The world “needs” the oil to sustain the current beneficiaries of the way things are in relative comfort, isn’t that more like it?
Or to continue advancing toward that profoundly illuminating moment when the first rockets lift off the burning planet with their payloads of stabilized genetic material.
As opposed to the way drug addicts “need” their drugs.
Robert 05.04.06 at 5:34 am
As far as malaria nets and other focused interventions in Africa goes, Jeff Sachs’ book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time is well worth thinking about.
dave heasman 05.04.06 at 7:58 am
Daniel eschews posting at the Graun because “It would probably be just sub-Economist bum-talking so I’ll do it here instead”
On the other hand., perhaps it’s too clever for them – I saw this yesterday :
“the G rang asking for copy from me; I offered a cut and paste job of some previous work. I sent it in and the reply I’ll never forget was: “You’ll have to seriously dumb it down for our readers”. “
Sarah Jane 05.04.06 at 12:03 pm
I used to like this site, but the second sentence of this item told me just a little too much about Daniel.
I don’t think I’ll be coming back.
emmanuel goldstein 05.04.06 at 2:11 pm
Surprisingly close to 1/1
jet 05.04.06 at 5:42 pm
Sarah,
Don’t you think you are taking the most unkind interpretation of the post possible? And why would you make your only comment on this site about how you aren’t coming back?
abb1 05.05.06 at 1:17 am
Ah, Darfur talks on brink of collapse as rebels say no; I guess the victims of a genocide are, once again, reluctant to be rescued and lose their valuable status, thanks to Sebastian&Co. Just like Mr. Kuperman predicted.
Daniel 05.05.06 at 2:02 am
These talks have been “on the brink of collapse” all week. This is the stage at which they bring on the nasty cop and explain to the rebel leaders that they have one and only one chance of staying out of the Hague court.
lurker 05.05.06 at 4:35 am
Obligatory comment on a topic that deals with the white man wanting to do ‘good’ in a non-white geographic entity.
Don’t. You have done a lot. Both good and bad. On the whole, bloody disgustingly bad. Especially in Afrique. Thank you, but no thank you.
You want a baby? Excellent. You have every right to have one. Perhaps, even a duty. But, please fuck your wife. No raping mine.
soru 05.05.06 at 4:44 am
Darfur is your wife?
On what grounds are you making that claim to ownership?
lurker 05.05.06 at 5:52 am
On the grounds of ‘democracy’ and ‘peace’ and ‘rule of law’ are white man’s babies. May I add, as defined so by himself.
jet 05.05.06 at 8:53 am
Lurker,
So what are you saying? That Africa doesn’t want these things and is happy to settle with ‘dictatorship’, ‘war’, and ‘injustice’?
Would you have the “Western” world stop sending aid to Africa? If not, then how would you convince the “Western” world to continue sending aid while doing nothing to help ensure a future for Africa?
As a for instance, a girl in South Africa is more likely to be raped than to be educated. How do you expect ethical people to stand back and do nothing?
lurker 05.06.06 at 5:33 am
Jet,
My views are essentially very simple, though, I admit, they are not expressed, how do I put, academically? A bit of personal information. I hail from, and subscribe to, what is popularly known as a ‘tribal approach’. Something I think of as ‘societal identity’. From such a background, it is unacceptable to pinch the child and then rock the cradle. Therefore, the West being the perpetrators of untold barbarity across the world, I find it incorrect, and I dare say downright wrong, to you trying to ‘rectify’ your past errors. It tantamounts to getting treated by a doctor who poisoned you. You will have to suffer guilt and/or punishment. No exit clauses.
Darfur apart, it is the larger principle of benovelant interference that I oppose. Actually, it is not even that, it is the Western (US, UK, France, primarily. But please do add Italy, Germany, et al. where applicable) idea of promoting democracy and free market and motherhood, perhaps even apple pie, in other parts of the world.
You see, historically, the mess of what is now Africa and to a lesser extent in the Middle East are repurcussions of the colonial past in these regions. No amount of screaming ‘mea culpa’ is going to wash away those sins.
Intro being over and done with, on to answering your specific queries
>> So what are you saying? That Africa doesn’t want these things and is happy to settle with ‘dictatorship’, ‘war’, and ‘injustice’?
Not at all. Africa wants democracy, on its terms. Even otherwise, ipso facto, what’s wrong with a dictatorship as long as war and injustice do not occur?
Africa wants motherhood, polygamy be hailed. Africa does not want apple pie.
>> Would you have the “Western†world stop sending aid to Africa? If not, then how would you convince the “Western†world to continue sending aid while doing nothing to help ensure a future for Africa?
No aid. Trade, maybe. But no aid. Zero loans. The handouts 1) are not reaching, cannot reach, will not reach, those who need it, 2) encourage a vicious cylcle of keeping mass murdrers in power.
>> As a for instance, a girl in South Africa is more likely to be raped than to be educated.
I know it is diffcult to accept, but there are certain things that are none of your business. As long as you are not raping and you are not being raped, unless asked for, don’t help.
>> How do you expect ethical people to stand back and do nothing?
Without getting into semantical and etymological arguments over ‘law’ vs ‘ethics’ vs ‘morals’ vs ‘logic’ vs ‘biology’, I’ll leave that for another day,I do not know what ‘ethical’ means to you, but when in doubt, do nothing. This ridiculous notion of “we just have to something!” has screwed up many a people many a time. At least not doing anything provides people who are doing something, less of a mess to undo. As for why you cannot be the person, even if you are ethical, to be that someone, re-read para 1. The West was/is the problem in Africa and therefore, by definition, cannot be the solution.
soru 05.06.06 at 5:43 am
I think the starting point to a discussion I am not really all that interested in having would be if you replaced the word ‘Africa’ with the word ‘I’ in the above post.
lurker 05.06.06 at 6:05 am
Oui. Very true, soru. After all, I can speak only for myself. A very unfortunate situation, for apparently, you, soru, and many others I gather, can not only speak for yourself but also for untold millions across continents and cultures and histories! Magnificent! An arrow sorely missing in my quiver, I admit.
But I agree, this is moving away from the topic, and I too am not very keen on discussing with know-it-alls.
Daniel 05.07.06 at 9:53 am
Even otherwise, ipso facto, what’s wrong with a dictatorship as long as war and injustice do not occur?
A question rather similar to “what’s wrong with keeping a pig in the house, as long as it doesn’t shit on the carpet?”
abb1 05.08.06 at 4:52 am
What’s wrong with a dictatorship as long as it results in less injustice and suffering than an elected government would under the circumstances?
IOW, is governing by emergency decree ever justified and if it is, what’s the rule that determines whether it’s justified or not?
Comments on this entry are closed.