(In)actuando en Darfur
Dos artículos de opinión en el Washington Post de hoy:
Inaction's Consequence
LAST MONTH the United States and its allies signaled a change in Sudan policy. Rather than pressuring Sudan's government to halt its genocidal attacks against civilians in the western province of Darfur, they switched to pushing for a peace deal between the government and southern rebels. [...] By emphasizing north-south talks, the United States risked sending a signal that the genocide in Darfur might be tolerated.
Sure enough, the violence in Darfur has worsened. According to the latest U.N. assessment, government attacks on civilians continue; the number of people affected by the conflict has risen to about 2.3 million;
[...]
The State Department hastened to respond that Darfur's crisis must be "addressed" before relations can be normalized. But it's not clear what this means, if anything, since the international community's pronouncements on Darfur are increasingly prone to criticizing rebel violence as well as official aggression. [...] The moral equivalence of some official statements is counterproductive. By blurring the question of responsibility, it encourages the government in its calculation that genocide will go unpunished.
If the Bush administration really does want Darfur's crisis to be "addressed," it needs to upset that calculation. [...] But the alternative to difficult action is to live with the consequences of inaction. On the best estimates available, about a third of a million people have died so far in Darfur, and unless the violence can be brought under control soon, there will be no spring planting next year and no fall harvest. More than 2 million people will continue to depend on Western food aid, and the lands of the displaced people may be taken by the perpetrators of the genocide. Thousands of dispossessed and desperate victims will sign up to join the rebels, perpetuating the cycle of violence and starvation.
Y un artículo que le pega un buen repaso a la moralmente superior Europa:
Darfur: Where Is Europe?
On Nov. 8, a U.N.-appointed commission of inquiry arrived in the Darfur region of western Sudan, to determine whether the slaughter of close to 100,000 people over the past six months constitutes genocide. While this three-month mission slowly goes about its business, Darfur continues to disintegrate into a horror zone of killing fields, mass rapes and ethnic cleansing.
For a few brief moments on Sept. 16, the European Union seemed to draw a line in the sand. On that day the European Parliament declared that the actions of the Sudanese government in Darfur were "tantamount to genocide," and E.U. ministers threatened sanctions "if no tangible progress is achieved" in meeting U.N. demands to halt the killings. Yet nearly three months later, two things remain clear: First, Khartoum has done nothing constructive to end the slaughter and, second, neither has the European Union.
[...]
Yet on the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, the world community has again chosen to watch, wait and, so far, do nothing.
[...]
While the United States is hamstrung militarily and politically by its current global commitments, the same cannot be said for the E.U. nations. Moreover, many have maintained a strong presence in Africa for centuries.
Yet Europe's "real commitment" to Africa appears to be a facade. The truth is that not one soldier saluting an E.U. flag is being readied for a trip to the Sudanese desert. With the assets of 25 member states, 450 million people and a quarter of the world's gross national product (over $8 trillion), the European Union does not lack resources, manpower or motive. Rather, the reasons why the European Union has not intervened in Darfur can be boiled down to two.
First, because the United Nations has not authorized an intervention, the European Union has not felt inclined to go in "unilaterally."
[...]
The second reason the European Union has not intervened is even more inexcusable, precisely because it is of its own making. [...] Under the Maastricht Treaty, CFSP [la PESC] actions require the unanimity of all E.U. member states, an uber-majority that all but eliminates the possibility of collective armed intervention. By defect or design, this allows member states to voice their concerns -- and then excuse their inaction as bowing to the judgment of the whole.
In effect the European Union has fashioned a foreign policy mechanism by which inaction is virtually automatic -- even in the face of genocide.
Conclusiones: los EEUU no van a intervenir porque ya llevan dos invasiones de paises musulmanes y no es cuestión de soliviantar a más gente, y por eso le pasan el marrón a la ONU; la ONU no hace nada porque Europa (con dos miembros en el CS) no impulsa ninguna acción; y la propia Europa se proporcionó un mecanismo como la PESC para no hacer nada, y encima justificarse. Así nos luce el pelo. Y en Darfur sigue muriendo gente.
Comentarios
Escrito por albertoillán en: Diciembre 9, 2004 9:38 PM
La verdad es que se podría hacer una bitácora que siguiera los conflictos donde NO interviene Europa y cuyos medios de comunicación olvidan, ignoran o esconden. Creo que sería muy interesante poder llevar una cronología de lo que no se hizo cuando el líder (o tonto, no sé si es el concepto adecuado) europeo de turno se ponga moralista con lo que hace o deja de hacer Estados Unidos.
Escrito por Albert_Esplugas en: Diciembre 10, 2004 2:46 AM
Ron Paul contra la intervención en Sudán: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul195.html
Escrito por Franco Aleman en: Diciembre 10, 2004 5:55 PM
Hombre, Albert, lo que dicen Bock y Miller no es incompatible con lo de Ron Paul. De hecho, aquéllos afirman que el hacer algo para que se frene el genocidio en Darfur vendría que ni pintado para Europa. Tendrían así ocasión de demostrar que la oposición a la guerra de Iraq era genuina, y no por mero anti-Bushismo o peor, por oscuros intereses (léase Petróleo por Alimentos).
En cualquier caso, Albert, y dicho con todo ese aprecio que sabes que te tengo: artículos como el de Paul ejemplifican ese rasgo del 'libertarianism' con el que a mi, sinceramente, me cuesta identificarme. Y especialmente en este caso porque la crítica es sobre todo procedimental.