Clark on Darfur (That's My Guy!)

by hilzoy

Yesterday, on NPR and his website, Wes Clark called on NATO to send troops to Darfur:

"After a series of UN Security Council resolutions on Darfur and a donors conference to boost the African Union Mission there, you could be forgiven for thinking the international community has responded adequately to the crisis. Sadly, this is far from the case. The international community urgently needs to take bold new action. The truth is, civilians are still targeted in Darfur. The pro-government Janjaweed militias still remain unchecked. Humanitarian access is still restricted along key transit routes and in areas where millions of displaced Sudanese have gathered. Women and girls are still being raped as they leave their camps to collect firewood and forage for food. It's a tragedy.

The African Union's priority must be to protect civilians. It must be able to take all necessary measures -- including offensive action -- against any attacks or threats against civilians and humanitarian operations. But the AU Mission's force numbers and mandate are simply not sufficient to cope with the reality on the ground in Darfur. The AU current plan is to deploy 7,700 troops next month, and possibly 12,000 troops next year. But this is far too slow. A minimum of 12,000 troops are needed on the ground right now, not six months from now.

The African Union should deploy a battalion task force of around 1,000 troops to each of Darfur's eight sectors and maintain another battalion task force in reserve. Each sector would then have close to 1,000 troops, twice as many civilian police, and 1,000 headquarters and other support staff. Even if the African Union can overcome the political obstacles to strengthening its mandate in Darfur -- and that's a very big "if" -- it's in no position to get such large numbers of troops on the ground in such a short time. Despite the European Union and NATO assistance, the African Union mission looks set to fall short of its target of 7,700 troops by September.

The UN Security Council, in consultation with the AU, should request and authorize NATO to deploy a multinational "bridging force" to bring the combined force level in Darfur immediately up to 12,000 to 15,000 troops while the African Union prepares and deploys its own forces.

This is not an easy recommendation to make for Darfur, where all multinational organizations have been at pains to keep non-African troops out of Sudan. But the notion that the atrocities in Darfur are solely African problems requiring exclusively African solutions has to be reconsidered. These ongoing offenses are crimes against all humanity. They demand an international response that gives human life priority over diplomatic sensitivities.

Working together, NATO and the AU can save the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. They can demonstrate to outlaw regimes like the government of Sudan that the international community will not tolerate crimes against humanity.

And we must do this now."

He's right.

Meanwhile, I wrote a while back about Be A Witness, a group that's urging the news networks to cover Darfur. They produced an ad, but the TV stations have refused to run it. You can send a letter urging the stations to show the ad here.

Comments

[Michael Cain]

Since the UN is (or will soon be?) debating Security Council reforms: I have frequently felt that there ought to be a price of admission for a seat at the SC table. 5,000 troops, their equipment, and logistical support, to be deployed under UN command on demand. Veto authority costs 15,000, which must include armor, and the demonstrated ability to place those troops and their gear anywhere in the world on 30 days notice. Troops not allowed to serve in their country of origin. What bad things could happen under such conditions?

[zmulls]

This is a great thing for him to do, works to all his strengths...

...and this is brilliant politically. Everyone's jockeying, or not jockeying, or trying not to jockey, on an Iraq position for 2008. Everyone's trying to outguess each other.

Clark's smart. He's grabbed a big, worldwide problem that everyone is ignoring and it taking it on. He gets points just for guts. And if he makes a different, he's a world leader going into 2008.

I know that isn't the topmost thing on his mind in making the choice to address Darfur, but I'm sure it was in the mix.

[John Biles]

I think the idea of demanding countries put up a certain amount of troops to be at the UN's disposal to deal with this sort of thing in order to qualify to sit at the big kids' table is a good idea. Countries which won't or can't contribute substantially to this sort of thing shouldn't be in a position to share in the top authority.

What's happening in Darfur basically exposes all the weaknesses of the UN and Africa's inability to police itself. The African Union is pretty much totally impotent to do anything to make Africa a better place.

And the innocent are going to suffer. I can say, with little doubt, that nothing is going to be done in time to help the victims in Darfut. Nothing.

It took South America over 150 years for it to get its act together, and even now, there's a long ways to go. Africa's only about 1/3rd of the ways to catching up with SA.