DARFUR: THE MILITARY INTERVENTION QUESTION
by Wynde Priddy
The entire political spectrum of the United States is only now
acknowledging the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan--which has been
ongoing since early in the year, with little to no media coverage until
recent weeks. Even now that the crisis has exploded into the media, few
political voices have taken a decisive stance on the question of military
intervention.
Currently, between 30,000 and 50,000 Sudanese are dead in Darfur from
either armed attacks or related hunger and disease, and at least 1.2
million have fled their homes for over-stretched refugee camps, either
within Darfur or in neighboring Chad. The camps within Darfur are under
threat of further attacks, and Oxfam warns that a cholera outbreak looms at
those on either side of the border.
The relentless attacks by armed militiamen--which the victims call
"Janjaweed"--have been systematic and widespread, concentrating in the most
western area of Darfur, within 100 miles of Chad. Janjaweed translates
roughly from Arabic as "a devil on horseback with a gun." While the
government in Khartoum claims to have no control over the militias, rights
observers say the regime armed them at the beginning of the conflict and
rallied them to devastate Darfur. Many Janjaweed militiamen were even
appointed as police in the area, positions they still hold today--as the
mounted militia has put hundreds of villages to the torch.
The conflict, which pits an Arab-identified pastoral class supported by the
government against indigenous peasants of the Fur and other local tribes,
escalated dramatically after the emergence last year of two rebel groups in
Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality
Movement (JEM). The rebels demand regional autonomy for remote and
impoverished Darfur, which has long been ignored by the Khartoum
government. This armed opposition to the Khartoum regime is the official
excuse for the violence. It was also used by the UN to deny the area
humanitarian aid at the beginning of the conflict.
Rights groups have noted ecological warfare, such as the destruction of
village wells, and the use of rape as a weapon of war. A recent Amnesty
International report states that girls as young as eight are being raped
and abducted as sex slaves by militiamen in Darfur. "The mass rapes ongoing
in Darfur are war crimes and crimes against humanity but the international
community is doing very little to stop it," Amnesty said in an official
statement July 19.
Musa Hilal is a noted Janjaweed leader who is said to control thousands of
militiamen. He has close ties to the Khartoum regime and refers to himself
as an agent of the government, rejecting the term "Janjaweed." He says the
militias are just protecting Arabs against the black African rebel groups.
"We retaliated, and we are criminals?" he rhetorically asked the New York
Times.
The United Nations is threatening sanctions, and has given the Sudanese
government until Aug. 30 to disarm the militias. There were large
government-orchestrated demonstrations at the UN offices in Khartoum Aug.
4, with protesters accusing the UN of providing a cover for the United
States to invade and attack Sudan, in the fashion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ironically, the US-authored Security Council draft resolution speaks only
of sanctions, and US Secretary of State Colin Powell--who visited Khartoum
July 1--has repeatedly said it is too soon to talk of military intervention.
The United Kingdom--the former colonial power in Sudan--has tentatively
volunteered 5,000 soldiers to serve as peacekeepers, an idea which the
Darfur rebel groups apparently welcomed. The Khartoum regime rejects the
idea. Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said: "We have to make
a distinction between three categories. The presence of observers, the
presence of protection forces for those observers and the presence of
peacekeeping forces. We don't have a problem with either the first or the
second categories. As far as the third category is concerned...this is the
responsibility of the Sudanese forces."
France has deployed 200 troops to eastern Chad (a former colony),
officially to protect the refugees there from cross-border attacks. Paris
insists their mission is purely defensive and will not intervene in Darfur.
The resolution that US Congress passed July 22 connecting the word
"genocide" with the situation in Darfur called for US military
intervention--either multilateral or unilateral--only if the UN Security
Council does not act decisively. The strongest opposition to military
intervention is coming from Republicans. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) protests that
"our military is stretched to the breaking point" and asks: "Can anyone
tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm's way in Sudan
isÉin the US national interest?"
No UN troops have yet been mobilized to Darfur. The only peace-keeping
force there now is 300 African Union troops sent only recently to police an
area the size of France. 150 more troops are expected soon from Rwanda.
Humanitarian organizations are calling for immediate aid for the refugee
camps, of course, and some has been sent. But there is no consensus on
their part about either US or UN military intervention. None of the major
anti-war and left organizations in the US has come out with an
anti-intervention stance, or even taken note of the question.
RESOURCES:
"UN Humanitarian Situation Report, Darfur Crisis, Sudan," Aug. 3:
Amnesty International, "Sudan: Rape as a weapon of war in Darfur," July 19:
"US Must Stay Out of Sudan" by Ron Paul, Anitwar.com, July 24:
"US Must Stay Out of Sudan" by Ron Paul, Anitwar.com, July 24:
Darfur Information Center:
See also "Darfur: Rwanda Revisited?", WW3 REPORT #99:
---------------------------
Special to WORLD WAR 3 REPORT, August 9, 2004
Reprinting permissible with attribution
WW3Report.com
