Saturday, November 20, 2004[posted by jaed at 8:40 PM]
Occasionally, I hear remarks to the effect that America doesn't care about democracy or human rights in Iraq - that all that is a sham - because if we did, we'd immediately invade the Sudan to put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.
I'm trying to imagine what the reaction would be if Bush emerged from the White House and announced that (after consulting with Britain, Poland, Tanzania and other willing partners) the US along with its allies was sending troops to Darfur to protect the Fur and evict or destroy the janjawid.
I don't have a hard time imagining it, actually.
- The cries of "No blood for oil!" would be deafening.
- NGO workers would be found who would claim that Darfur wasn't so bad off, and immediate attention would be paid to other disasters elsewhere. The question would arise "What is America's *real* motive in Darfur?"
- News anchors' brows would be furrowed.
- "The Arab street will explode."
- A "body count" site would be set up.
- Someone would discover a photograph of an American official shaking hands with a Sudanese minister twenty years ago; within five minutes, this would be used as "proof" that America "created" the janjawid.
I suspect eventually we'll do it. It won't be with the support of the UN, since France is a UNSC veto power, has strong oil interests in Sudan, and has already said it will oppose any such action. So the action will be "unilateral", that is, without the approval of France, and "illegal", that is, without permission from the UNSC. And all of the above and more will happen, and the post-humanitarian left will again be found in the forefront of protest. It is as inevitable as the tide.