Still desperate in Darfur

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Sen. Hillary Clinton, striving to prove her foreign-policy gravitas this week at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, suggested that NATO troops should be deployed to Sudan to put out the genocidal fire engulfing Darfur -- a suggestion already made by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. If only the Darfur tragedy could be resolved by Mrs. Clinton's Munich proposal.

Mrs. Clinton failed to address some fundamental problems. First, major African countries have made clear they do not want a NATO-style presence in Sudan. Also, key NATO countries are opposed to such a deployment. Finally, a NATO role in Sudan could play into hands of Khartoum, which is adept at whipping up anti-Western sentiment.

At a summit in October in Tripoli, the presidents of Chad, Nigeria, Libya and Egypt released a joint statement on that called for the "rejection of all foreign intervention in this purely African question." That would pretty much rule out NATO involvement, particularly since NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said earlier this month that the alliance would be willing to play a supporting role in Darfur only if African leaders request such help at the United Nations.

Still, there is a real risk that Africa's troop capacity is stretched too thin to adequately handle the Darfur crisis. Africa's resolve in handling the problem is commendable, and the almost 2,000 African Union troops in Darfur have served competently and bravely there, pushing the definition of the "observer" mission they were deployed to execute. Even the 3,000-plus deployment the African Union will eventually be sending to Darfur, however, is woefully inadequate to police the vast area the size of France. The countries that do have the necessary troop strength " such as Nigeria, Rwanda and South Africa " already have deployments in Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi.

U.N. peacekeepers may be needed, therefore, to supplement AU troops. However, it is unlikely that AU and Khartoum will seek such help. Also, the record of U.N. peacekeepers in creating a peace where there is no peace deal has been dismal.

The U.N. Security Council must put real pressure on Khartoum, then, to reach a deal with the Sudan Liberation Army, the main rebel group from Darfur, and to accept a more robust force in Darfur. Also, the U.N. panel must step up pressure on Sudan's neighbors to crack down on the flow of weapons to Darfur rebels and others in Sudan.

There are no good solutions, and there may be no solution at all. Of the choices available, U.N. peacekeepers may be the best bad option. At least they could tap currently undeployed troops from nations around the world.