Earlier this week, Osama bin Laden released a new tape calling on jihadists to gather in Sudan and prepare for a long war against the "Crusaders" who he accused of plotting to take over the western province of Sudan--Darfur-- and the oil fields there. While bin Laden remains a serious problem (to say the very least--anyone think Bush is really interested in catching him before, oh, say, October 2006), he is not the cause nor of course, the solution to the horrific genocide in Darfur.
So what are some suggestions for solving the ongoing destruction of the homes, lands and lives of hundreds of thousands of Darfurians? Nicholas Kristoff, in his Tuesday column in the New York Times, provides a great outline of what it will take to stop the genocide in Darfur while confronting the challenge laid down by bin Laden.
The first step to stop the killing is to dispatch a robust U.N. peacekeeping force of at least 20,000 well-equipped and mobile troops. But because of precisely the nationalistic sensitivities that Osama is trying to stir, it shouldn't have U.S. ground troops. Instead, it should be made up mostly of Turks, Jordanians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and other Muslims, and smaller numbers of European and Asian troops. The U.S. can supply airlifts, and NATO can provide a short-term bridging force if necessary.
This will require the U.N. to step up and for China to stand down from its unconscionable block to any serious U.N. response. It will require that France, still linked with the neighboring and now threatened country of Chad, step up with real leadership in NATO. It will require the Bush Administration to stop fixating for a few moments from its debacle in Iraq and plans for Iran and to put its full support behind solutions rather than just words.
Second, the U.S. and France should enforce a no-fly zone from the French air base in Abéché, Chad. American military planners say this is practicable, particularly if it simply involves destroying Sudanese aircraft on the ground after they have attacked civilians.
Almost daily bombing raids against not only villages but at times even refugee camps by helicopters and air planes gives lie to any suggestion that the maruading janjuweed are not financed and tactically supported by the Sudanese government.
Kristoff points out the risks of both of these suggestions but also points out the precarious position the Sudanese government is in, and why such actions are likely to force this hostile regime to back down from its ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign.
A no-fly zone and a U.N. force are among the ways we can apply pressure, but another essential element is public diplomacy. We should respond to Osama by shining a spotlight on the Muslim victims of Darfur (many Arabs have instinctively sided with Sudan's rulers and have no idea that nearly all of the victims of the genocide are Muslim).
The Bush Administration, for all that I despise virtually everything they have done, has gotten one thing right--when they named what was happening in Darfur what it is: genocide. Now they need to take that naming to a higher level, with action. Kristoff lists several very good ideas:
The White House can invite survivors for a photo-op ... We can release atrocity photos, ... President Bush can make a major speech about Darfur, while sending Condi Rice and a planeload of television journalists to a refugee camp in Chad to meet orphans.
...Granted, it's the fault of the "CBS Evening News" that it gave Darfur's genocide only 2 minutes of coverage in all of last year (compared with the 36 minutes that it gave the Michael Jackson trial), but the administration can help when we in the media world drop the ball.
The U.S. could organize a summit meeting in Europe or the Arab world to call attention to Darfur, we could appoint a presidential envoy like Colin Powell, and we could make the issue much more prominent in our relations with countries like Egypt, Qatar, Jordan and China.
And what can we do as individuals?
Americans often ask what they can do about Darfur. These are the kinds of ideas they can urge on the White House and their members of Congress -- or on embassies like Egypt's. Many other ideas are at savedarfur.org and at genocideintervention.net.
When Darfur first came to public attention, there were 70,000 dead. Now there are perhaps 300,000, maybe 400,000. Soon there may be 1 million. If we don't act now, when will we?