Sudan
Ash, on Sudan: "Why, I ask again, has the US chosen not to act either unilaterally or multilaterally?"
There are many reasons why we haven't acted unilaterally, and one giant reason why we haven't acted multilaterally.
The amount of animosity engendered by unilateral exercises of American power have the unintended effect of making our foreign actions even more singularly focused, more, as Ash would deride, self-interested. Therefore, because of a world affliction of power envy, and because of the existential struggle we are in with Radical Islam, we must choose our battles carefully.
Another reason would be that we really do want, despite the assertions of the chattering classes, to allow the rest of the world an equal say in what happens, and an equal responsibility in the results. Creating unrealistic expectations of America as the Universal Fireman is not in our interest.
Another reason is that, contrary to the flattering rumors, America is not omnipotent and, even though we have gi-normous reserves of resources, they are not infinite. Because of this, see reason one.
The primary reason for the multilateral stall is not the US. As far as I know, Ms. Rice's recent statements to Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir using the word "genocide"--to his face--are the first of its kind. Europe, if you'll remember, had a debate last year on just what "genocide" meant and if it could be applied to Sudan, and they adjourned unanimously convinced that they should talk about something else. They didn't want to say something that America would have to back up.
But even European weakness is not the primary "multilateral" reason for the inattention. Nope, for that you would have to look to China and her unquenchable thirst for Sudanese oil. While our moral betters on this side of the Atlantic are horrified about wars for oil, our Chinese friends are not as sophisticated and urbane. With a Chinese veto on the Security Council and the inevitability of its use, why waste time and political capital on an impossibility. Plus, if any sanctions were actually applied on Sudan's only major export, it is without a doubt that Omar el-Bashir and his regime would suddenly be awash in Chinese made weapons and cash, and the horror in Darfur would accelerate until the very reasons for the sanctions were...quieted.
How, then, would that solve the humanitarian crisis?
There are many reasons why we haven't acted unilaterally, and one giant reason why we haven't acted multilaterally.
The amount of animosity engendered by unilateral exercises of American power have the unintended effect of making our foreign actions even more singularly focused, more, as Ash would deride, self-interested. Therefore, because of a world affliction of power envy, and because of the existential struggle we are in with Radical Islam, we must choose our battles carefully.
Another reason would be that we really do want, despite the assertions of the chattering classes, to allow the rest of the world an equal say in what happens, and an equal responsibility in the results. Creating unrealistic expectations of America as the Universal Fireman is not in our interest.
Another reason is that, contrary to the flattering rumors, America is not omnipotent and, even though we have gi-normous reserves of resources, they are not infinite. Because of this, see reason one.
The primary reason for the multilateral stall is not the US. As far as I know, Ms. Rice's recent statements to Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir using the word "genocide"--to his face--are the first of its kind. Europe, if you'll remember, had a debate last year on just what "genocide" meant and if it could be applied to Sudan, and they adjourned unanimously convinced that they should talk about something else. They didn't want to say something that America would have to back up.
But even European weakness is not the primary "multilateral" reason for the inattention. Nope, for that you would have to look to China and her unquenchable thirst for Sudanese oil. While our moral betters on this side of the Atlantic are horrified about wars for oil, our Chinese friends are not as sophisticated and urbane. With a Chinese veto on the Security Council and the inevitability of its use, why waste time and political capital on an impossibility. Plus, if any sanctions were actually applied on Sudan's only major export, it is without a doubt that Omar el-Bashir and his regime would suddenly be awash in Chinese made weapons and cash, and the horror in Darfur would accelerate until the very reasons for the sanctions were...quieted.
How, then, would that solve the humanitarian crisis?
posted by John Aristides at 9:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home