Just the other day George Clooney called for "action" on Darfur. What he meant by "action" was marches, speeches and more talk.
The Save Darfur Coalition is advocating something similar. Will it work?
Then again, the use of unilateral U.S. military power isn't the solution most Darfur activists have in mind. Even as western Sudan burns, Darfur advocates such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argue that the United States must employ its military power only on behalf of--and, more important, in concert with--international organizations such as the United Nations. The Save Darfur Coalition, a leading umbrella group for organizations bent on action, intends to save Darfur not by urging the Bush administration to launch air strikes against Sudan's murderous militias but by petitioning the White House to bolster funding for African Union peacekeepers and to lobby the United Nations.
But will the African Union put a halt to the killings in Darfur? Absolutely not. Its Arab members have stymied the force at every turn. Will the United Nations solve the crisis? That seems extremely unlikely as well. The organization amounts first and foremost to a collection of sovereign states, many of them adamantly opposed to violating Sudan's own sovereignty. Can NATO save the day? Not really, given the fears of entanglement expressed by its European members. As in Bosnia before it, the victims of Darfur can be saved by one thing and one thing alone: American power.
Read the rest.
There were some interesting signs at the anti-war march yesterday. It would seem some on the Left are starting to realize just how impotent the UN really is. If you see someone with one of these signs ask them two questions: 1) Why do the people of Darfur deserve to be saved but not the Iraqi people and 2) Are they advocating that the US invade? Here's the sign: