Does the solution to Darfur lie not in peace treaties but in food, medicine and bringing the countries into the twenty first century?
I have been an advocate for Darfur and preventing further/stopping the genocide since long before any of my friends even knew that Darfur was a region in an African country known as Sudan.
I am a great believer in humanitarian aid.
It has often been pointed out to me that humanitarian aid is all well and good but in the case of Sudan, their history—the colonialism, the overt and ongoing corruptions, the inability or refusal of leaders to learn from past mistakes, and even the “oil gods”, (which National Geographic called “monsters which can crush you” back in their September 2005 Africa Special Issue) -- makes the obstacles to real peace insurmountable. Humanitarianism then becomes simply a band-aid we will never take off.
Of course, all that is a significant part of the story, and it seems easy to disregard humanitarian aid as something necessary and nice but not something that is going to really change the state of a continent or even a country.
I hear, and agree to a point, but with a twist that until the government of Sudan takes action to protect their people and shows a willingness to prosecute those who pose a threat to their people, what we do there is really going to amount to nil.
In my twisted opinion it is quite possible that humanitarian aid alone, if really given in much stronger doses than it is now, will be the only thing that in the end can save the people of Darfur.
Huge, UN-funded humanitarian aid.
If we are not going to bulldoze them over with our military finesse and if we are going to pussyfoot around playing delicately with the leaders, who quite frankly need a lot more than a peace agreements -- as we've seen time and time again -- to entice them to save their own people, then humanitarian aid is all we got.
In Darfur—where the “corporate sentiment of oneness” is smaller than the existing civil state, or nonexistent; where there appears to be nothing to ignite that one significant allegiance to the state, nothing to transcend the racial, tribal, linguistic, political and religious differences within the state and give rise to some sentiment of oneness—humanitarianism may be the only way to solve the problems long term.
What we must do is feed the hungry and treat the diseased. We must do it well and we must do it with greater veracity, organization, with significantly increased expediency, and on a much larger scale than we are doing now: humanitarianism with a specific goal and with an end in sight, finite, tactical, goal-oriented, UN-funded and initiated - large scale humanitarianism!
In the end, that would be better than to call what is happening genocide and then continue to do what has not worked in the past.
When poverty is imminent and constant, when disease is prevalent, when no real access to the modern world seems possible, and when there is no other solution… shit happens. It's happening in Darfur. We can fix that.
In the end, maybe a health and nutrition treaty would be a better idea.
Article comments
1 - JM
Theoretically it would seem possible : it would still require a lot of military power in order to enact.
Maybe it would be easier to get military in if the only thing we were asking for was to give the humanitarian aid. Not sure of the logistics.
A dream thought with some good points.
2 - John M
The general public still knows nothing about it and they don't care. I think what they are doing now is the same old same old. It didn't work and we can only hope.
Power to the people because it's the people who are going to have to take care of it.
Figure out how to empower the people and we are halfway to a solution.
They can't do it when they are starving and in dying from diseases which no one in this modern world should be dying from.
3 - cooper
We can dream can't we Jacob.
John the power of the people is usually the only way and of course power is the last thing on their minds when they are starving and in need of medical care.
If we can't stop the rape and the murder than we can at least attempt to make the people strong enough to do so themselves.
4 - troll
how do you propose that a corrupt and marginalized UN accomplish your goal - ?
and if not the UN then 'who' - ?
troll
5 - Meathook
Talk about quagmires. Darfur is a quagmire of unknown proportions waiting to happen. The Europeans won't fix it, the UN can't fix it and if we end up with a blithering idiot democrat in 2008 and he gets us involved it will be worse than a second Vietnam. It will make Bush's Iraq adventure look like a walk in the park.
6 - cooper
Darfur has already happened - is happening and has been for several years.
It is obvious that treaties which try to direct the behavior of the various factions don't work. It is possible, although a long shot that trying only to feed and make healthy the population will go a long way in enabling them to make some progress on their own.
The UN despite it marginalization has to be the catalyst, the engine and the labor.
The bottom like is that The Sudan does have to help itself if the leaders won't do it for their people the people have to do it and there has got to be a way to help them do that.
We can dream can't we?
7 - pia
Agree that the UN should be the catalyst, but the US has rather effectively worked to keep the UN, itself, as marginalized as possible.
Cooper I have lost my remaining faith in institutions, and place my faith--and I have much--in individuals
You, yourself are responsibile for making many people---individuals--on the Internet aware of Darfur, and that's not something to be trifled with.
A health and nutritution treaty is actually an excellent idea. When people aren't sick and starving, they begin to become capable of self help