Holding Africa Accountable

[NATO AIR]

(Posted this on my blog (http://tonewfrontiers.blogspot.com) after I typed it at lunch time underway today... Thank yous to Dillo, Said1 and Johnney for creating and cultivating the seed of thought that is expressed here)

America is without a doubt the most powerful nation in the world, in many ways ranging from the political to its robust economy. It boasts a military that can topple murderous regimes, battle terrorists and save tsunami survivors, all while defending the homeland, maintaining the peace in several regions of the world and providing a global security force that generally gives all who would threaten the world’s stability considerable pause. The much hyped lack of American diplomatic cache in the aftermath of Iraq has been proven to be a farce, as American leaders broker new peace deals, economic trade pacts and national alliances all over the world. Its citizens are a generous lot, mobilizing their bank accounts to donate billions to aid tsunami relief, fight AIDS and address other ills of the world, notably slavery, terrorism and extreme poverty. One could go on for pages about its culture, economy and infrastructure, all of which afford it a unique and incredible opportunity to greatly affect events in the world.

So when considering the tragedy of genocide in Darfur, one is not surprised to find the US generously footing the bill for a majority of the relief efforts that keep millions alive every day in the face of the Islamist regime’s favorite weapon: famine. Its people are growing increasingly aware of the tragedy, leading to the formation of student activist groups, church action committees and an entire brigade of editorial writers who wisely weigh the enormity of the evil of genocide and wage a written struggle against the Khartoum regime. Its legislatures are busy considering divestment of state investments in Sudan which deal with companies that profit from genocide and fatal injustice. Its main legislative body, the Congress, was until recently rushing to push through a piece of legislation that demanded the other players in the world, the UN, EU & African Union (whom we will address very soon) begin to get involved in the effort to end the genocide and stop the dying, all while urging President Bush to take a more high-profile leadership role on Darfur. Pres. Bush ended this legislation, perhaps because the Khartoum regime is now his ally in the war on terror (and he feels it is better to reproach them privately and with the specter of US aid and alliance hovering over) or perhaps because he feels his way of dealing with Darfur and Sudan (downplaying the genocide while generously aiding the survivors and pushing for peace much as he successfully did between Khartoum and the South it waged jihad on for 20 years) or maybe a mix of both.

For now, America’s role is set. As is that of Sudan and the Darfur rebels. The UN is powerless due to China’s security council veto power and its vested interest in Sudan’s oil. The EU is not interested in Darfur’s suffering, as noted by more than a year of what amounts to near total silence on the issue.

What of Africa though? Where is the African Union beyond its meager force of a few thousand noble peace monitors who try their best to save lives but are largely ineffectual due to their low numbers? Where is Africa’s outrage over another instance of genocide, another brutal, pointless war, another tyrannical regime waging total war on its rebellious populace? Where is the pressure from an angry South African and/or Nigerian president on Khartoum to end its genocide?

Until Africa takes a step forward and addresses its ongoing in-house tragedy in Darfur, little progress will actually be made. America is increasingly aware of the need to strongly consider the feelings of neighbors and allies in how it approaches foreign policy, as well as the practical limitations that are placed on its military and diplomatic initiatives by nations unwilling to cooperate (Turkey’s decision to deny the use of their territory during Operation Iraqi Freedom for example). How can America be expected to intervene forcefully in Africa or somewhere else if the target nation’s neighbors are uninterested in its downfall or in the goals of the intervention?

In all fairness, a good percentage of Africa’s problems can continue to be traced back to colonial and post-colonial mistakes, tragedies and crimes. Yes, Africa is still quite an ignored continent, despite the best efforts of generally well-meaning leaders in the West. Yes, Africa faces very difficult challenges that most nations in the developed world cannot begin to fathom. Yes, Africa is saddled with the weighty legacies of generations of oppressive and corrupt leadership and great power meddling.

That said, enough is enough. This is a continent with a leadership that by and large refuses to address head-on the terrible, destabilizing and destructive problems it faces. Genocide or something close to it happens in Sudan, the African Union response is to send a miniscule group of peace “monitors” to oversee a “peace” that is non-existent and probably won’t come to fruition until most of the population is dying, dead or a refugee in a foreign country. Mass murder at the hands of armed thugs occurs in the Congo, and it takes a well-armed force of Pakistani peacekeepers to make any progress in halting their bloody march of death. A criminal enterprise led by a bold war criminal terrorizes multiple nations (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea), amputates hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens and takes the lives of more than a million, while hand-wringing and greed rule the day in African capitals that should have been mobilizing to stop it from the very beginning. A farce of an election in Zimbabwe is watched globally and Africa’s leading powers shrug their shoulders and decline to condemn it or punish the regime responsible for impoverishing and oppressing an entire nation. Does the lack of action on AIDS, terrorism, poverty and the unceasing spread of weapons need to be mentioned in detail?

Until Africa (through the African Union or some other forum) decides it wants to take the lead on man-made disasters like Darfur and take bold, constructive action to stop them, it should expect mass suffering, oppression and death to continue the stalk the continent with vicious tenacity. Until Africa decides it wants to help itself, it cannot be successfully aided by well meaning programs in the West. Until Africa decides it has tired of tyranny, mass corruption and tribal hatreds, it cannot look forward to a bright future.

Africa’s future can be found for better or worse in the blood soaked provinces of Darfur. If inaction in the face of genocide continues, expect more of the same from the continent in the next decade and beyond. If the AU decides it can no longer tolerate the regime-sanctioned wholesale slaughter of an entire population, and demands logistics, arms and money from the West to help them stop the killing, then expect an Africa that will grow more confident, more peaceful and more promising in the next decade and way beyond. The choice is that stark for the African Union and the people of Africa.

Lead the fight for freedom or linger in tyranny’s shadow. Challenge evil or concede its victory. Stop the dying or invite future body counts that will gall even the most cynical, jaded observer.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Thoroughly enjoyed your article. Well said.

I know you've posted an article relating to Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire (Ret) and the Rwanadan genocide. He's now a part of our senate. I'm sure you've also heard that Canada proposed sending a small contingent there. Well add our political chaos into the mix and you get this. Here his take:

Senator asks MP to withdraw call for troops
Would hike bloodshed in Darfur: Dallaire

Tue May 17 2005

By Mike Blanchfield
OTTAWA -- Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire has told Independent MP David Kilgour to stop asking Prime Minister Paul Martin to send hundreds of troops to Darfur because that would lead to unnecessary bloodshed and all out war.

Dallaire said he asked Kilgour to reconsider his call for at least 500 Canadian combat troops for the war-torn Sudanese region, but stressed his intervention has nothing to do with helping Martin win Thursday's confidence vote.

"I joined this thing because I'm putting my Rwandan reputation behind a Canadian effort to get into Darfur," Dallaire said yesterday in an interview from Boston. Dallaire commanded the United Nations mission to Rwanda during the 1994 genocide.

Kilgour's vote, as one of three Independents in the House of Commons, is crucial if the Liberal minority government is to survive Thursday's confidence motion. But the Edmonton MP remained steadfast on the weekend he won't support the Liberals -- a party he quit last month -- unless Martin does better than the 60-odd military advisers he pledged to the African Union last week.

Dallaire said he called Kilgour to explain combat troops are not the answer. African Union troops must take the lead, and countries such as Canada are best to supply the technical advisers the AU has asked for.

"The solutions that are coming forward from David simply don't permit us to do it. If we move white combat troops in there, we're going to have to fight our way in with the Sudanese to start with and nobody's going to join us," said Dallaire.
Dallaire, a retired general, said he was hoping to adjust Kilgour's thinking about what is needed now in Darfur "not what was needed six months ago. Now we're in a different tactical scenario. Let's adjust the troops to meet that requirement."

Dallaire said he applauds Kilgour for raising Darfur's profile, but he has to adjust his view.

"As I told David, I can hear the Darfurians screaming because I heard it 10 years ago," he said.

Dallaire's comments came as the Foreign Affairs Department moved yesterday to head off a diplomatic incident with Sudan after CanWest News reported Saturday the Khartoum regime felt Martin had not consulted it properly over last week's plan to offer military and humanitarian assistance to the AU mission for Darfur.

Sudan's ambassador to Canada said while her country appreciated the aid package of $170 million in military assistance, it would have preferred more active consultation.

Foreign Affairs assembled some of its most skilled and respected diplomats for a briefing yesterday in which they gave additional details of the Darfur plan. The officials stressed Canada has consulted with the AU, and Sudan is a member. None of what Martin offered is cast in stone, and can be rejected by the AU when it considers Canada's request this week.
"We are sensitive to some of the concerns that have been raised by Sudanese authorities regarding their sovereignty. We, of course, respect that and will be working very closely with authorities in Sudan, as we have been over recent months, as we were developing this plan," said a senior Foreign Affairs official.

-- CanWest News Service

Link available at Winnipeg Free Press with subscription.

 

[NATO AIR]

Thoroughly enjoyed your article. Well said.

I know you've posted an article relating to Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire (Ret) and the Rwanadan genocide. He's now a part of our senate. I'm sure you've also heard that Canada proposed sending a small contingent there. Well add our political chaos into the mix and you get this. Here his take:


Link available at Winnipeg Free Press with subscription.

Thank you Issac. I enjoyed reading the article you posted.

It would be nice if, when Canada's political chaos subsided, whatever gov't is in charge would start to zing the AU and Sudan over what's happening.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I would wholeheartedly agree. It seems like now there is funds and technical expertise for the mission available. We now just need a sponsoring nation and I agree with Dallaire and you that it should be AU led. To be realistic, I think the situation is out of Canada's hands though now. Given that any UN mission has to be backed by the security council, I think the responsibility lies with Russia, China, the US, UK and France to get the political momentum moving.

Nigeria appears to be a good fit both having both Islamic and Christian ties as well as having come from a background of ethnic turmoil of its own. Tunisia and Ghana as well have hardened peacekeepers with previous experience in Mozambique and Rwanda.

I just wish they all did this soon.

 

[NATO AIR]

Me wonders how the US (and perhaps EU, but doubtful) could pressure leading AU nations to generate the political will to confront Sudan over this and get the peace monitor force expanded into a peacemaking instrument.