Darfur: Part Two

  August 29, 2008

  At the basis of the Darfur sorrow, there is the split in Africa between black and Arab. This split in Sudan is a microcosm of the larger version of the same split in the African Union. The word “Africa” now means: black vs. Arab. But what we may not point out is that a sizable subculture among Arabs is supremicist in its attitudes, including among the Arabs of Africa. In sum, then, the genocide against the blacks in Sudan can only be explained by virulent racism, learned in the school of Hitler.

  That is, during WW II, Hitler of course took France– but the one who takes France in 1940 also takes French possessions in the Middle East. Thus Hitler was enabled to move the Nazi bureaucracy and attitude into that region. When the war ended, Israel soon after announced its brave existence to the world, only to be immediately attacked by Arab antisemitism, a good part of it imbibed from Hitler’s abandoned and overturned goblet. The Darfur genocide, like the attacks on Israel, has its precedent in the Nazi holocaust. We need to see the origin of the genocide clearly if we are to decide effectively how to stop it, and bring Omar al Bashir of Sudan to his knees. If we underestimate the provenance of the genocide, we will spin our wheels impotently. And that’s what’s been done so far. We should consider ourselves up against Hitler, or more precisely, up against the progeny of Hitler, if we are to take useful action against the horror of that regime.

  John Bolton writes in his U.N. memoir: “As is too often the case in ‘humanitarian’ affairs, actual performance is less central than demonstrating ‘compassion.’” What Bolton asserts here is that the moral stance of, say, the Save Darfur movement doesn’t do Darfuris any good– they need heavy military intervention. The web site of Save Darfur is full of references to the U.N. and to the African Union, and even to you, too, starting a Save Darfur group in your neighborhood. But what could be more inadequate? A lot of compassion is shown, but only to the purpose of self-validation, while nothing is actually done for Darfur, exactly. Bolton goes so far as to suggest Africa just flat outgrow U.N. peacekeeping operations. He claims that the black African ambassadors “urged him on” in his efforts to bring common sense to the problem. They certainly preferred him to the others on the Security Council.

  Africa possesses a powerful subculture of ethnic strife that can be called upon by Sudan to deny that genocide is genocide (at least among the Arab factions). Thus, a certain cover is provided for the odious machinations of Khartoum. There is also The Friends of The Sudan Society on the Security Council– that is, China, the Islamic countries, and the Arab countries. But, the Save Darfur movement, with its blind insistence on the U.N., is providing cover, too, of a different sort: by misdirection, it indirectly discourages real discussion of the solutions that could work. How could pretentious little neighborhood groups in American cities stop a genocidal monster in Africa?! We don’t want to see ourselves as people who advocate the destruction of life in any way. But the lack of historical sense of those who will not go beyond the pondering of weak solutions that cannot work, is culpable.

  Such as these believe themselves to be in possession of a solution that no one else can see or think of. They believe they are changing the world by being as they are morally, they believe themselves to be the moral highpoint of the human race and of history. They believe that if we undertook unequivocal military action to stop the genocide, that would be akin to the genocide itself. They feel they would lose a part of themselves if they came out in favor of American military force. And so, with moral conceit and blindness such as this, nothing happens to help the Darfuris, and real help for them is blocked.

  According to Bolton, the U.S., through the Pentagon, offered free military assistance to Kofi Annan for Darfur, but he turned it down, believing that the African Union could and should handle the problem. The willful naivete of the Secular Pope is beyond measure. But if you want something done about Darfur, get out of denial: the U.N. can’t handle it; the A.U. can’t handle it; Save Darfur can’t handle it; neighborhood groups can’t handle it. They just simply pursue the furtherance of a culture of concern.

   Any forceful, dynamic action is politically impossible, however, for the Bush Administration, given its low approval ratings. By discrediting Bush and the U.S., critics have constrained America politically as far as what it can do in Darfur. Bush has then just worked through the U.N. to get something done (like everybody else). But he would do more if not held down by the U.N. bureaucracy. Bombing missions such as NATO undertook in Serbia in the 1990’s would be a good start. Margaret Thatcher said drily at that time, in advocating force in the Balkans, “Serbia is not a world power.” Check– neither is The Sudan. I feel sure that anti-Americanism is standing in the way of Bush’s bombing al Bashir’s military installations. In the end, the misplaced idealism and passivity that thinks the solution doesn’t involve undiluted NATO or American force, is disingenuous.

T.D.

Thanks for visiting.

P.S. (New post now on PAGE TWO about Russia.)