Aid Isn't Enough In Dafur

Barack Obama and Sam Brownback wrote an editorial in the Washington Post that highlights the ongoing misery in Dafur, Sudan. They note that the US has spent more than $1 billion on aid to relieve the suffering in Dafur, and yet the situation is continuing to deteriorate.

While the 7,000-strong African Union force in Darfur has undoubtedly reduced the violence, it has become clear in recent weeks that it lacks the resources and manpower to secure a region the size of France. Indeed, the African Union force itself is increasingly being targeted and harassed. Five of its soldiers were killed and 34 were kidnapped in October. As one AU colonel recently said, "We are sitting ducks." Administration officials have publicly expressed doubts that African countries will provide the additional troops needed to create a stable security environment. The African Union also lacks the communications, airlift, logistics and intelligence capabilities to challenge the aggressors in Darfur. A political settlement is clearly critical to resolving these challenges. Unfortunately, the U.S.-facilitated political negotiations are at best sputtering. Having brokered the landmark peace accord between Khartoum and rebels in the south, senior administration officials had hoped that the integration of southerners into the Sudanese government would change Khartoum's stance on Darfur. But there is no balance of power between the rebels, who are disorganized and wracked by infighting, and the Sudanese authorities, who have no incentive to compromise. As a result, the talks are entering their seventh round with no consensus in sight.

Meanwhile, large numbers of vulnerable people in Darfur are confined to camps surrounded by a variety of hostile armed elements, with no effective security force or political process in which to invest hope. Absent a drastic change of course, many Darfurians will take up arms, and far more will die.

It is essential that the Bush administration shift its approach to confront the new and mounting challenges. Only the United States, working in concert with key nations, has the leverage and resources to persuade Khartoum to change its ways

I could have told them this more than a year ago. Peacekeeping and aid in and of themselves will not solve the problems in Sudan (or elsewhere).

The policy of providing aid is a band aid. It doesn't attack the underlying problems and while it makes the donors feel good about providing aid, it doesn't prevent the situation from continuing. Other dictators take note of the situation and apply the lessons to their own populations. They know that they can act with impunity from the UN and other human rights organizations because they simply can't or wont interfere to stop the carnage.

The solution is peacemaking - eliminating bad regimes and failed states that engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, and otherwise spread misery to millions of people. Sudan is one such failed state. And that's along the lines of what Obama and Brownback are proposing, though they're hoping for a multilateral approach. I'm not so optimistic that a multinational group can hold the line in Sudan (or elsewhere for that matter). The African Union is incapable of handling the situation on its own and lacks the manpower, not to mention the logistics, to handle the situation on its own. The Chinese and Sudanese governments are opposed to any intervention as it would disrupt China's oil deals with Khartoum (and once again bad actors are reinforcing other bad actors).