Self-defense to genocide?
My hunch is that Mr. Bashir’s calculation is twofold. First, he hopes that if there’s enough suffering in Darfur, the United Nations Security Council will approve a one-year delay in the court’s proceedings (he miscalculated, for that won’t happen). Second, he has long wanted to get rid of aid workers in Darfur, partly because they are the world’s eyes and ears there.
As pointed out by Kristof, here’s a section of what Gen. Merrill McPeak, the former Air Force chief of staff and a co-chairman of the Obama presidential campaign, suggests in an op-ed:
Air power plays a central role in Bashir’s military strategy, so establishing a no-fly zone remains the most promising initiative to halt the atrocities in Darfur. During her Senate confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that such a proposal was under consideration. As a practical matter, imposing control over Sudanese airspace must involve NATO and European Union allies, in particular France, which has a suitable airfield at Abeche, in eastern Chad. Allied air forces could and should provide much of the force structure, principally fighter aircraft, but a U.S. contribution — especially of aerial refuelers and command-and-control aircraft — would be essential. About a squadron of each type of aircraft would be more than enough to end the impunity Sudanese military aviation now enjoys.
And and an interesting article on the “Making Sense of Darfur” blog criticizing aid agencies for failing to prepare for this day – their expulsion. While the focus should be initially on the tragedy unfolding because of al-Bashir, the author has a point. This was inevitable, aid agencies should have been initiating – as much as possible – the necessary structures for self-sufficiency. However, for those on the ground, do such options exist? Is there a means of ensuring this self-sufficiency considering the environmental and political setbacks?
The first impulse of the media and international community has been to focus on the urgent need for aid to continue. But I think many people should consider why aid needs to continue so desperately, despite years of work and billions of dollars invested. How can it be that after 28 years of being there (as one organisation proudly states), 2.2 million people are dependent on international aid agencies for basic needs? For me, this is the real tragedy. Speaking to a very senior and respected African activist, he tells me that life in a camp is generally like being in prison: in most camps there is no farming, no jobs – no way to be self sufficient in the least; the lack of security outside the camp makes it impossible to leave; while aid workers come and go, people live in these camps for many, many years.
….
In 1987 a group of organisations worked with displaced communities in a town called Yei in South Sudan, completely cut off from aid: “There was little hope of receiving much in terms of food or other humanitarian aid: road access was blocked by the rebels and limited to military-escorted convoys every few months”. They agreed the only way to truly help communities was to encourage them to grow food wherever possible, help them to run their own medical and education services themselves, and support them to govern themselves in their traditional manner. Compared to camps in the nearby town of Juba, where malnutrition, alcoholism, divorce and delinquency were rife, communities in Yei resumed an almost normal life, providing for themselves, educating their children and caring for their sick. Although Yei was a displaced camp, it was unrecognisable as such. It was from this experience that AAH-I emerged.