Author: Utsav Patwardhan
In the last issue of The Weekly, Assistant Opinions Editor Sarah Flocken wrote an article titled “U.S. Intervention Required in Sudan.” I would like to disagree with her statement that it is up to the United States to step in and stop the ongoing genocide.
There is no question whatsoever that atrocities are being committed by multiple parties in Sudan. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of thousands have been killed in the past few years. Rape, sexual assault, child conscription and indiscriminate mass killings have become almost commonplace in the region.
Shockingly, these events are often unable to muster even a substantial headline in the news. The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, the first ever issued for a sitting leader, sparked tremendous controversy and was denounced by both the African Union and the League of Arab States.While I fully agree that Omar al-Bashir should be held accountable for his crimes against humanity and brought before the ICC, it is important to remember that accomplishing such a feat would be unprecedented. Any attempts to bring him before the ICC as a current leader, legitimate or not, would not only prove immensely controversial, but would also hamper humanitarian efforts.
Following the ICC’s arrest warrant in 2009, al-Bashir immediately expelled a large number of foreign aid organizations. It remains clear that while al-Bashir remains at large, the Sudanese people will only continue to suffer. In the meantime, he has continued to travel to certain countries, including Egypt, where he was welcomed by President Hosni Mobarak, rather than arrested and delivered to the ICC. When major regional players do not recognize the necessity of arresting al-Bashir, it is our only choice to set this aside. Our optimal choice in this volatile situation is to work with all concerned parties to continue implementing the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) before trying to punish ongoing crimes.
Flocken states that the United States “likes to stick its collective nose in the business of other countries,” but asserts that the ongoing situation in Darfur deserves an American intervention.
Unfortunately, this is the same attitude that has gotten the U.S. into trouble repeatedly and, as a country, we never seem to learn. In the last two decades, the United States has experienced this numerous times.
Take, for example, the recent intervention in Somalia. Numerous foreign force deployments have failed miserably: UN mission I (UNOSOM I), the United States-led (sound familiar?) UNITAF and, finally UNOSOM II. The final mission is the most well-known, having ended with the infamous Black Hawk Down incident in which 18 American soldiers were killed and 78 were wounded. The last thing the U.S. needs in its current state is to become tied down in another bottomless “police action” in which we sacrifice countless lives and resources for a counter-insurgency and rebuilding effort.
Not only can we not afford this effort, but we are also not welcome. The African Union has repeatedly stated its opposition to a foreign military effort. Until several years ago, the Sudanese government had even said it would consider the presence of a foreign UN peacekeeping force to be an invasion. While attitudes have changed since then, it still would not at all be acceptable for the U.S. to lead a foreign invasion force. It is crucial that we leave any military intervention to the African Union, which would be much better received in Sudan than a foreign operation.
The nationality of a potential force is, however, the least of our problems. Currently representing the international community in Darfur is the AU-UN peacekeeping force (UNAMID). The situation remains dangerous. Initiating a coordinated military intervention would have disastrous ramifications. It would spark a full-fledged conflict as well as reverse any momentum toward implementation of the landmark CPA. In Afghanistan, with widespread allegations of fraud in the elections, it was the wisest choice for the U.S. and other coalition participants to accept the outcome in the hope of ensuring unity. Similarly, we must do the same in Sudan, at least in the short term, to ensure ongoing cooperation.
I am very aware that this is a nasty pill to swallow, but we have no other choice. We can only hope that once peace is achieved and the country is stabilized, we can right injustices and persecute war criminals like Omar al-Bashir for crimes against humanity. However, in the meantime, it is crucial that the United States takes a much-needed break from unilateral police action and pursue multilateral diplomacy through the AU and UN. We cannot afford another Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq – neither financially nor diplomatically.
Utsav Patwardhan is a first-year Biology/DWA major. He can be reached at patwardhan@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
