Dafur in the News

In comments to reporters last week, Annan had indicated that he planned to press Bush to commit the United States to playing a larger role in Darfur, saying that broader military intervention that included at least logistical support from modern armies is needed to bring peace to the region. An estimated 180,000 people have been killed and 2 million have been driven from their homes in the past three years.

"It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate to Third World countries," Annan said. "They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur."

No word on whether Annan mentioned the dreaded "G" word. Genocide. And Annan thinks that his most recent comments will somehow absolve him and the UN of their failure to respond for the months and years that the violence in Dafur occurred? Not a chance.

He's now hoping that the US and other countries might take action above and beyond what the US had already done.

President Bush and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan agreed on the need for a bigger, more mobile peacekeeping force in Sudan's troubled Darfur region during a White House meeting yesterday, but Annan made no specific requests for U.S. military help.

Speaking to reporters after the Oval Office session, Annan said it is premature to ask for more than a general commitment from the United States until the United Nations determines what it needs for the planned peacekeeping force in Darfur.

How about a commitment from the other 190+ countries to step into the breach and take up peacekeeping and live up to the ideals of the UN and the Genocide Convention. Of course, that's not a realistic evaluation of the UN since there's only one country that has any capability to act anywhere in the world and project power; the United States. Other countries end up having to rely on the US to assist in logistical support.

The problem is that the US has the moral imperative to act with or without the UN - we've already made declarations that genocide was ongoing. Sitting idly by isn't, and shouldn't be, an option. Neither is the possibility that the lawlessness in Sudan can translate into another haven for terrorist groups like al Qaeda (which found Sudan to be quite hospitable in the past).

Yet, we see no sense of urgency among those at the UN to act. No need to stop the killing. They'll get to it when they get to it, preferably after a couple of anti-US or anti-Israel declarations. Oh, and there's the tiny problem that some countries don't want the violence to stop - because it might mean upsetting their cozy relationships with the Sudanese government in Khartoum (China, we know you're there!).

Amygdalagf and Decision '08 have more.