Darfur and the "International Community"

The genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan tragically continues, while the "international community" of which John Kerry is so enamored continues to look the other way. Joe Katzman at Winds of Change provides a great update and overview. Friday, the US finally managed to push a resolution through the UN Security Council, that gives the Sudanese regime 30 days to halt the depredations of government-sponsored militias in Darfur, or face some sort of sanctions. The fact that the US had to drop the word "sanctions" from the resolution in order to get it passed should tell you all you need to know about the priorities of many of the countries on the Security Council. Naturally, the radical Islamist regime in Khartoum protested this infringement on its sovereign right to massacre its own citizens in peace:

"Sudan expresses its deep sorrow that the issue of Darfur has quickly entered the Security Council and has been hijacked from its regional arena," Information Minister El-Zahawi Ibrahim Malik said in a statement.

But the violence has continued despite a cease-fire called in July and Sudanese promises of a crackdown. The three African countries on the council — Algeria, Angola and Benin — backed the U.S.-sponsored resolution.


Meanwhile, the Janjaweed militia busily commit further atrocities, including burning people alive:

MILITIAS chained civilians together and set them on fire in the western Darfur region of Sudan, where tens of thousands of people have been killed in the 17-month conflict, according to a report published yesterday by an African Union monitoring team in the region.

The monitors are supposed to be observing a ceasefire signed in April between the government and the region’s two rebel groups. But fighting has continued in Darfur, where militias drawn mostly from nomadic Arab tribes have launched a brutal campaign to drive out black African farmers.


It is vital that the genocide in Darfur be halted by whatever means are necessary. Every day we delay, more people die. While military action should be avoided if possible, the insertion of an American-led or sponsored force to halt the genocide should not be ruled out. If we do act, it is likely that our intervention will draw far more outrage from the "international community" than the actual genocide itself. Fine, it's better to do the right thing than the popular thing.