Why America's definition of "genocide" is the only one that matters
Monday, November 22, 2004 at 4:51PM ■"In Sudan, a Sense of Abandonment: Crisis Victims See Little Help From Outside," by Emily Wax, Washington Post, 16 November 2004, p. A1.
I know I've covered this thing many times before. The only reason I cite this article is the following: to highlight the African Union's sad attempt to plus up its "observer force" from 700 to 3,000. The AU asked for $220m in donations to finance the effort, and got only $140m pledged, so nothing has happened. The plus-up is designed to make the force something closer to a peacekeeping force, instead of just note-takers, but Sudan has been adamant about not letting in any such peacekeepers, only "observers."
How many peacekeepers would be needed? Good estimate is 44,000. So is the observing helping in the absence of peacekeeping? According to one experienced Canadian general, "The mission of observing will do nothing except destroy the credibility of African Union troops . . . Observing troops getting beaten up and dying is useless."
There will be no 44k peacekeepers without the U.S. military as the hub around which the spokes can be laid. If the US sees no genocide, then it does not matter who does, because there is no critical mass without the Pentagon. No Pentagon, and it ain't on the map.
Reader Comments