What a week! But back to our regular scheduled Darfur-blogging. Writing in the Washington Post on election day here in the U.S., Professors Morrison and Crocker -- neither of whom I've ever heard of but who seem reasonably qualified to assess this sort of thing -- argue that some in the U.S. need to just chill a bit on all the militant talk that can sound a lot like calling for heads to roll in Khartoum:
The demand by American activists for U.S.-led military intervention to halt genocide in Darfur by the Sudan government and its militia proxies is a utopian diversion that has led nowhere. Their verbal attacks on Khartoum and calls on China and Russia to stop blocking possible UN coercive action may express their frustration but do not make good foreign policy. The Bush administration needs to concentrate on the real choices for exercising U.S. influence and make the achievement of a verifiable negotiated settlement to end Darfur's carnage its top priority.
One thing that might come out of the great electoral upheaval in the U.S. last week is that perhaps that those "activists" might get be joined by Capitol Hill in standing up for Darfur. Somewhat forgotten over the last six years is that high office can be a heck of a bully pulpit, and some sign from the 110th Congress the U.S. might be willing to use it some effect in Darfur might convince those engaged at the grassroots don't feel that the only hope is to call in the troops.
RSS