Crunchy Con

Save Darfur? You sure about that?

Monday October 8, 2007

Categories: International

David Rieff says that "save Darfur" advocates are oversimplifying the actual conditions on the ground there. Think it's a good vs. evil story? It might have been at one time, but not anymore. Excerpt:

If Save Darfur had said, "Look, the situation in Darfur is very convoluted and, while the government of Sudan deserves the lion's share of the blame, the rebels are no prize either," how many contributions would the group have received, and how many volunteers would they have inspired?

Precious few, most likely. And yet -- although it probably was the case that in 2004, the conflict in Darfur could accurately be described as a campaign of terror and murder against Darfuri civilians orchestrated by the Khartoum government -- in 2007, the conflict has degenerated into one in which rebel factions are fighting one another while factions within the janjaweed are doing the same. In other words, it's a war of all against all.

So, interventionists, on whose side are we supposed to intervene? Or maybe we should recognize that not every problem has a solution, yes?

Advertisement
Comments
mal
October 8, 2007 11:46 PM

Darfur: Why I Dont Give a Damn
31

05

2007
There are so many reasons I could care less about Darfur and there are so many problems with the logic of the “save Darfur crowd” that it’s hard for me to find a place to begin. But let me essentially say that I don’t care because the crisis neither involves nor affects me. I feel no connection to the people who live there—they are not my “brothers and sisters,” their fate has nothing to do with me; don’t pretend they have anything to do with you. I don’t care if a bunch of Arabs want to kill a bunch of indiginates, it happens all the time, and it happens because their society is primitive and uncivilized.

Do I like the fact that 400,000 people have been killed there? No. Do I wish that Africa as well as the whole world would live in freedom and (thus) prosperity? Yes. But wishing it true won’t change its reality. And to fix Darfur will change a real and concentrated effort. And that effort will cost a price. The question that remains is, why should we engage in this effort?

The efforts that exist as is—the initiatives of the bleeding hearts and Darfur-is-the-in-thing-to-do teenagers—only involve money. But in all their infinite self-righteousness they failed to recognize that the nature of the issue cannot be solved by money. Dollars don’t stop bullets—bullets stop bullets. The only way to stop government genocide is to do it by force. Someone must intervene militarily for any genocide to be stopped.

But for intervention to occur at least one nation must take responsibility. But whom? Is there any nation, any person who is obligated to help? No, of course not. Not the US, not any nation—save the Sudan itself—is guilty of the crimes committed there, so they have not responsibility to invest themselves to alter the course. Nor do these nations have a responsibility to themselves to intervene in Darfur because the Sudan is not by any stretch of the imagination a threat to the security of their country.

Of course this does not say that anyone is not morally justified in attempting to fight—Sudan is a murderous regime that perpetually violates the rights of their citizens and systematically operates on a premise larger than death. But if you do chose to fight for Darfur then you must fight yourself. You cannot and may not drag anyone else into this fight. What do I mean by this? I mean that you can donate as much money as you want but you cannot take my money and donate it (i.e. international aid via taxes…duh). I mean that you can go fight in Darfur as part of an ad hoc vigilante militia but you cannot deploy US military—who I pay and whose job is to protect me—and waste their efforts and their lives on a problem irrelevant to American security.

As far as I’m concerned my government exists to protect my rights—just as other governments exist to protect their citizens. So the only time my government should wield its foreign policy is when my rights are threatened by foreign belligerents. Anything more is a waste of my money, which the government confiscated from me, and thus tramples on my rights. So if the United States government endeavors to fix the shit pie that is the Sudan—a nation whose government in zero ways threatens American freedom—it does so at my expense. And quite frankly we have enough people in the world trying to kill us already to begin worrying about people who aren’t.

I think the most childish thing about the save Darfur crowd is that for all their labors they have never actually enumerated a plan or even a general strategy for solving it. Most of the efforts have concentrated around “awareness”—we hear that word a lot with them—well guess what? We’re aware; surely, all of our policy makers know about it; so is the UN. But awareness does not come close to solving the problem. As I said, someone’s gonna have to wage war. But the problem is that the save Darfur crowd is the type of crowd hardly willing to fight a war and face up to the harsh realities of it. They are the type who thinks that they can live outside of reality, where you can stop a bomb by holding hands, contradicting values can live in harmony, and there is no objective concept of evil.

The only proper roll of a foreign policy is self-defense—in the same way that government is created for the purpose of defending the individual rights of its citizens. Privately donating and striving for Darfurians is wonderful, but no one has an obligation to Darfur which is why employing our government—using the tax money and lives of Americans—to fix the problem is an unjust option. Simply it seams like the bleeding hearts of the world have been following each other without ever looking where they are heading. They don’t seem to be willing to defend our country from a belligerent like Iran, but when the fate of the primitive and irrelevant are brought to the table everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It’s about time we got a hold of ourselves and allow rationality to enter the debate. Someone has got to have the balls to say it: Darfur just doesn’t matter.


Zach

Will Harrington
October 9, 2007 2:27 PM

Now, if only we had asked that question about Kosovo

Usama
October 9, 2007 3:39 PM

The matter has indeed been convoluted by rebels groups who serve as proxies for foreign powers. Defending against raping and pillaging Janjaweed is one thing, simply attacking towns and claiming autonomy for Darfur is another.

The Janjaweed are the Contra rebels of the Khartoum govt. The irregular forces of a govt too weak to control the entire Darfur. The righteousness of the rebel groups has failed after they continually signed peace deals and then started fighting again, breaking into still more factions and fighting amongst themselves. In the meantime, they've received more arms, jeeps/trucks, and communication equipment from somewhere.

In the end, the Khartoum govt is responsible for Darfur. They should gain power and bring stability. The people need to return to their villages. The Khartoum govt has promised 300 million in reconstruction aid. After stability, the matter of the criminal Janjaweed and the Khartoum generals who deviced their tactics should be exposed and brought to justice.

Caroline
October 9, 2007 4:38 PM

I still don't understand what the Chinese are supposed to do. Invade the Sudan and make everybody behave? Or else we won't go to their Olympics?

Or is the USA that is supposed to invade Sudan and make everybody behave?

I too am confused about precisely what action the "Save Dafur" crowd want the rest of us to take.


DavidTC
October 9, 2007 6:50 PM

This is a new variant on 'Ignore the problem and it will go away'. It's called 'Ignore the problem and it will get so hellishly bad there's absolutely no solution at all.'.(1)

That'll show all those people who want to solve problems! We'll just wait until things became so bad we can't fix it, and then won't they all look like fools for suggesting something we can't do?

*rolls eyes*

More seriously, no, I don't know what we're going to do about Darfur or the Sudan in general. One of the obvious things is to stop the fighting from spilling over into Chad again, but that won't help the other side of the country.

1) I believe this is also our Iraq withdrawal plan.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.