The African Union's Moment Of Truth

[NATO AIR]

I wrote this at sea a few days ago.... its time for the AU to man up or admit its a failure.

http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2005/03/

As the Sudanese government engineered genocide in Darfur continues, the presence of African Union “peace monitors” has devolved from a symbol of hope to a sickening example of a colossal failure to act in the face of evil. (For many brave soldiers from genocide-ravaged Rwanda, who have helped man the 1,000 odd man force, this must be an especially painful reality) No doubt exists that the militaries of South Africa, Nigeria and other leading nations in Africa have the manpower to fill a 10,000-20,000 peace making force in Darfur, but complex political realities and logistical issues may keep this force from ever forming beyond the small group in existence now. The consequences of this failure to act will not only dearly cost the victims of genocide in Darfur, but holds potentially devastating repercussions for the rest of Africa as well. America has a vested interest in intelligently utilizing its resources to assist the African Union from reversing its course on an imperiled road.



The African Union’s moment of truth has arrived. It has not mustered the political will to fulfill its force manning promise, failed to seriously pressure the genocidal government of Sudan and has lacked the courage to challenge the world to fully supply, augment and support a serious AU peacemaking effort in Darfur. In committing this comedy of errors, it has given Sudan a free hand to rape, slaughter and starve to death more Africans, made itself appear inept and incompetent before the world stage and to many Africans and allowed the world’s leading democracies to make little to no true effort to save Darfur.



The African Union has a limited window of opportunity in the coming weeks to correct these tragic mistakes, and it is time to admit it needs help and to forcefully, clearly make the case before NATO for exactly what that help will be. The burning question then becomes, “if NATO (or a coalition of the willing comprising primarily of America, Britain and Canada) will fully support the AU with whatever it needs, will the AU mount a true intervention?” This also works vice versa for the AU, for if it becomes willing to mount a full-scale intervention, NATO must support it or admit its abandoning not only the people of Darfur, but the Africans who wanted to save them.



The stakes here are higher than widely realized. Failure to halt genocide in Africa will set the stage for future mass slaughters of ethnic and religious groups. Current dictators like the tyrants in Khartoum and in Zimbabwe will be emboldened by the AU’s lack of strength and resolve. Future despots will take heart in realizing the African Union is just a 21st century version of the failed OAU that disgraced Africa for decades with its tolerance of dictatorships, widespread injustice and mass murder. The ascent of the rule of law and order across Africa, so desperately needed on a continent still afflicted and threatened with civil wars, insurgencies and devastating cross border conflicts, will take a significant step backwards. More bluntly, the AU will more resemble the ineffectual, corrupt UN, not the prosperous and ambitious EU.



Benefits abound for African nations as well as those who would support them financially and logistically to halt the genocide. An Africa united behind the forceful rejection of the sponsors of mass murder in Sudan would be a stronger, more secure continent, less likely to tolerate genocide for so long in the future and more determined to solve its own problems. The soldiers in an AU peacemaking force, supported by NATO technology and logistics, would one day leave Darfur more skilled and professional than ever before, proceeding to pass on their valuable experience to their countrymen in arms. Closer ties between democracies in Africa and NATO would benefit peace in Africa, a necessary condition for prosperity and stability to take hold there. These same ties would force China to take a more responsible role in its dealings with African nations, where it has repeatedly supported tyrannical governments like Sudan and Zimbabwe in exchange for valuable natural resources like oil or diplomatic cache.



The African Union is at a critical juncture; will it allow Africa to slide into the destructive habits of the past or will it forcefully, bravely lead it into a brighter future? Will it attempt to tackle its own problems effectively, while having the courage to admit when it needs assistance instead of foolishly ignoring reality? Will it promote freedom and peace in Africa, or fuel instability and insecurity on a continent already too well experienced with the destruction these negative factors create? Will it challenge the world to help a fledgling organization trying to defeat evil and create peace, or allow the world to abandon it to the ash heap of history, where it is likely headed after failing so dreadfully in Darfur?

 

[CSM]

Sounds an awful lot like the UN doesn't it?

 

[j07950]

We were talking about Dafur in one of my classes (called: Neo-Nationalism and small wars) and we were saying how difficult the situation in Dafur was. We were trying to come up with solutions and the African Union is the only plausible one. First the term Genocide will not be used by western powers or the UN because that means they have to intervene. The problem is that China will Veto anything that goes through the UN because it sells arms to the Sudanese government, and Russia would probably also veto because it has Oil contracts with Sudan. Plus Western powers aren't interested in intervening anyway. They could use the example of the US who intervened in Irak without the UN's consent but no one is interested in Sudan, sadly enough, like the rest of Africa, it's just not attractive. Plus it's an arab governed country, there is enough problems with Irak already without Dafur. Arab countries would surely revolt against an intervention led by western powers. So the AU is the solution. But the thing is that to legitimize the intervention, muslim countries should also get involved with the AU, but that's never going to happen. Supposedly Muslims won't kill other Muslims (well thats an argument raised in class but than again look at Irak, what are muslim terrorists doing to other Iraki muslims?)... So an intervention by the AU, with a majority (I think, any muslim countries involved?) of non muslims countries, is weak...Especially with neighbouring countries involved in the intervention. Sudan could accuse those countries of wanting to gain land or influence in Sudan...
Anyway, it's very very complicated. I hope the AU will succeed though. And if not than European powers, led by Australia and Canada (for legitimacy reasons) should intervene... The US already has it's hands tied and we all know the Arab world would go crazy if the US somehow got involved...