I may be too harsh in that indictment, but I have to say it really angers me when sensible people like Mr. Kristof allow their emotional response to atrocious behavior and their naïve faith in the power of the idea of human rights to cloud their judgment about what is the prudent action to take for the sake of the Sudanese people.
Let’s consider the actions Kristof proposes that the United States take to further pressure Bashir in the wake of the ICC arrest warrant. From his March 4th column:
The first step is to insist that aid groups be reinstated immediately to prevent this genocide in slow motion. A second step could be to destroy one of Mr. Bashir’s military planes with a warning that if he takes his genocide to a new level by depriving Darfuris of food and medical care, he will lose the rest of his air force.Okay. Consider the “insistence” made. And when Bashir shrugs his shoulders in response to that insistence, what next? Well, bomb Sudan, of course!
No way in hell is Obama going to bomb Sudan. For starters, Sudan is a Muslim country—with oil! Bombing Sudan is not going to jibe too well with Obama’s carefully planned PR offensive in the Muslim world. And I’m no military expert, but I feel pretty confident that the generals in the Pentagon will not look kindly upon the idea of bombing even a single measly little plane in Sudan. What happens after you bomb one plane and Bashir doesn’t budge? Bomb 10 planes. Bashir still in power? What then, invade Sudan? Where does it end? And there is also the fragile peace in southern Sudan to consider when mulling the idea. Kristof is simply not thinking clearly about this issue.
But I don’t want to single out Kristof. He is only too typical of the short sighted thinking that goes on in human rights circles. At the core of the human rights community’s myopia is an obsession with justice that often comes at the expense of stability and peace and welfare for those we are trying to help.
The human rights movement was born out of the revolutionary—and noble—idea that individuals have a direct relationship with international law that is unmediated by the layering of a sovereign state. This revolutionary idea is championed by people who, not coincidentally, possess what could be called the revolutionary spirit. It is that spirit which drives Kristof and company recklessly and unthinkingly into the painful truths of reality. It is that revolutionary spirit that must be tempered, for the sake of the people of Sudan and for the greater cause of human rights.
Bashir has been in power for a long time now. I’m afraid that the issuing of an ICC arrest warrant plus some scolding and even some bombing will not change that painful reality.
UPDATE: in today's NYtimes there is an op-ed decrying the idea that Obama might talk to the Taliban. It documents many of the truly horrific deeds the Taliban perpetrate. But it also makes a slip up and reveals what lies at the core of the argument against talking with the Taliban. (This is also, I believe, what is at the core of the argument for bombing Sudan). The author says "And when I heard that the Taliban proceeded to shut down nearly 200 Swat Valley schools — well, it’s been keeping me up at night." Memo to those who don't want to talk to the Taliban and to those who want to bomb Sudan: it's not about YOU! Whether or not you can sleep at night is neither here nor there. The only relevant questions are: 1.) what is best, under the admittedly poor circumstances, for the Afghan or Pakistani or Sudanese people and 2.) what is best for the interests of the United States.
If talking to the Taliban or refraining from bombing Sudan will result in less death and more stability, then that is what should be done. Please don't talk to me about your insomnia. I'm sorry, but I don't care.
4 comments:
Kristof is certainly putting forth a punishment/demonstration rationale in that quote, but doesn't he also sometimes offer an interdiction rationale, that those planes (or is it helicopters) are instrumental in carrying out the genocide, or at least supporting the mujahideen?
An interdiction rationale may well be part of what Kristof was thinking when he proposed taking out Sudanese military hardware. But the justification (however sensible) is irrelevant. No matter the justification, the actual action of sending a warplane over Sudan to destroy a Sudanese plane or helicopter or whatever will pretty much never happen, at least in the foreseeable future. And once that fact is understood, then the ICC arrest warrant ceases to make sense because it will have zero chance of having its desired effect--namely regime change or some sort of backing down on the part of Bashir. As we have seen so far, it has had the opposite effect.
I agree that us bombing Sudanese hardware will pretty much never happen, but a lot of the reasons we used to have for that are going away. The NYT front page has an article about the military's increasing reliance on drones, which are cheap and also would enable us to avoid the ugly scenes from Mogadishu.
This still leaves the "presenting a new face to the Muslim world" reason, and I think that reason will win, but it's up against a campaign with a lot of glamorous pressure and seeming legitimacy.
a campaign that has "glamorous pressure" and "seeming legitimacy" doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you are the "decider" and your generals and your common sense both tell you that sending a drone to bomb Sudan is a really bad idea.
UPDATE: in today's NYtimes there is an op-ed decrying the idea that Obama would talk to the Taliban. it documents many of the truly horrific deeds the Taliban perpetrate. But it also makes a slip up and reveals what lies at the core of the argument against talking with the Taliban. (This is also, I believe, what is at the core of the argument for bombing Sudan). The author says "And when I heard that the Taliban proceeded to shut down nearly 200 Swat Valley schools — well, it’s been keeping me up at night." Memo to those who don't want to talk to the Taliban and to those who want to bomb Sudan: it's not about YOU! Whether or not you can sleep at night is neither here nor there. The only relevant questions are: 1.) what is best, under the admittedly poor circumstances, for the Afghan or Pakistani or Sudanese people and 2.) what is best for the interests of the United States.
If talking to the Taliban or refraining from bombing Sudan will result in less death and more stability, then that is what should be done. Please don't talk to me about your insomnia. I'm sorry, but I don't care.
Post a Comment