Africa

At a press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday afternoon, President Bush sought to explain why stronger action has yet to be taken vis-a-vis Darfur.

We shared our deep concern about the people in Darfur. And I -- I share frustrations that the United Nations-AU peacekeeping force is slow in arriving. I made the decision not to put our troops in there on the expectation that the United Nations, along with the AU, could be effective -- and they haven't been as effective as they should be, and we'll continue to work to help them.

The slow deployment of UNAMID -- the peacekeeping force scheduled to reach full deployment in Darfur over three months ago -- is indeed frustrating. But the argument that Bush is making here -- a myth that he has promulgated before -- is deeply disingenuous. The alternative to a slow-deploying UN force was never sending U.S. troops into Darfur; this option was simply never on the table. No U.S. troops have been available for this kind of peacekeeping mission -- let alone those in Liberia, Congo, Lebanon, and the other various war zones where the UN is deployed -- nor would sending U.S. troops to these places, or to Darfur, necessarily have been a good idea. As Condoleezza Rice reminds Bush in Nick Kristof's imagined rendition, "you can't invade a third Muslim country, especially one with oil." No, the alternative to U.S. troops in Darfur was, is, and will continue to be putting an effective UN peacekeeping force on the ground there, which the U.S. has been in the most opportunistic position to ensure. By failing to provide more robust support for UN peackeeping, to invest a deeper commitment in Sudan's tortured peace processes, and to exert more concerted pressure on Sudan and its enablers, the U.S. has consistently watched opportunities for peace and protection in Darfur sail by. Faulting the UN for a slow-deploying and under-resourced peacekeeping mission is a bit like blaming one's shadow. If the U.S. is going to cast stones at the UN, it would do well to remember that the UN is no more than its Member States, and that the U.S., with the huge amount of influence and funding that it brings to the world body, may well end up looking to itself, with a stone in its hands. Yet President Bush continues to present this false dichotomy: unilateral U.S. military action, for which the American population largely has no stomach, versus a failed UN mission, which the U.S. can conveniently scapegoat for the continually deteriorating situation in Darfur. The media should call the administration out on this self-exculpatory tactic, and the U.S. should discard its smoke and mirrors and work honestly with the international community to achieve real, tangible progress in Darfur.

At a press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday afternoon, President Bush sought to explain why stronger action has yet to be taken vis-a-vis Darfur.

We shared our deep concern about the people in Darfur. And I -- I share frustrations that the United Nations-AU peacekeeping force is slow in arriving. I made the decision not to put our troops in there on the expectation that the United Nations, along with the AU, could be effective -- and they haven't been as effective as they should be, and we'll continue to work to help them.

The slow deployment of UNAMID -- the peacekeeping force scheduled to reach full deployment in Darfur over three months ago -- is indeed frustrating. But the argument that Bush is making here -- a myth that he has promulgated before -- is deeply disingenuous. The alternative to a slow-deploying UN force was never sending U.S. troops into Darfur; this option was simply never on the table. No U.S. troops have been available for this kind of peacekeeping mission -- let alone those in Liberia, Congo, Lebanon, and the other various war zones where the UN is deployed -- nor would sending U.S. troops to these places, or to Darfur, necessarily have been a good idea. As Condoleezza Rice reminds Bush in Nick Kristof's imagined rendition, "you can't invade a third Muslim country, especially one with oil." No, the alternative to U.S. troops in Darfur was, is, and will continue to be putting an effective UN peacekeeping force on the ground there, which the U.S. has been in the most opportunistic position to ensure. By failing to provide more robust support for UN peackeeping, to invest a deeper commitment in Sudan's tortured peace processes, and to exert more concerted pressure on Sudan and its enablers, the U.S. has consistently watched opportunities for peace and protection in Darfur sail by. Faulting the UN for a slow-deploying and under-resourced peacekeeping mission is a bit like blaming one's shadow. If the U.S. is going to cast stones at the UN, it would do well to remember that the UN is no more than its Member States, and that the U.S., with the huge amount of influence and funding that it brings to the world body, may well end up looking to itself, with a stone in its hands. Yet President Bush continues to present this false dichotomy: unilateral U.S. military action, for which the American population largely has no stomach, versus a failed UN mission, which the U.S. can conveniently scapegoat for the continually deteriorating situation in Darfur. The media should call the administration out on this self-exculpatory tactic, and the U.S. should discard its smoke and mirrors and work honestly with the international community to achieve real, tangible progress in Darfur.

MONUC, the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is typically -- and accurately -- described as, at over 17,000 uniformed personnel, the largest such mission currently deployed. What is less frequently considered, however, is the sheer size of the ground that these 17,000 peacekeepers have to cover. Just take a look at a map.

DR Congo is about the size of Western Europe. With that perspective, it's easy to understand why the Secretary-General, in his most recent report on the mission, worries that it risks becoming "stretched to the limit" as it transitions almost entirely to the eastern part of the country. Indeed, at a press conference in New York yesterday, the Secretary-General's Special Representative to MONUC, Alan Doss, confirmed that 92% of the mission's forces were now deployed in eastern Congo -- a crucial repositioning that will help the mission build on January's ceasefire in the volatile region. Even in just two of Congo's smallest provinces, though, UN peacekeepers still have to patrol an area the size of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg combined. Speaking today at the Wilson Center, Mr. Doss made the telling analogy that MONUC's task of patrolling one of these provinces, South Kivu, is equivalent to having one police officer cover all of Manhattan, plus a sizable chunk of Brooklyn. We often don't appreciate how tall of a task UN peacekeepers in remote, expansive , violent locations face. Give that statistic to a police officer in New York City, though, and I imagine s/he'll appreciate it a whole lot more.

MONUC, the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is typically -- and accurately -- described as, at over 17,000 uniformed personnel, the largest such mission currently deployed. What is less frequently considered, however, is the sheer size of the ground that these 17,000 peacekeepers have to cover. Just take a look at a map.

DR Congo is about the size of Western Europe. With that perspective, it's easy to understand why the Secretary-General, in his most recent report on the mission, worries that it risks becoming "stretched to the limit" as it transitions almost entirely to the eastern part of the country. Indeed, at a press conference in New York yesterday, the Secretary-General's Special Representative to MONUC, Alan Doss, confirmed that 92% of the mission's forces were now deployed in eastern Congo -- a crucial repositioning that will help the mission build on January's ceasefire in the volatile region. Even in just two of Congo's smallest provinces, though, UN peacekeepers still have to patrol an area the size of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg combined. Speaking today at the Wilson Center, Mr. Doss made the telling analogy that MONUC's task of patrolling one of these provinces, South Kivu, is equivalent to having one police officer cover all of Manhattan, plus a sizable chunk of Brooklyn. We often don't appreciate how tall of a task UN peacekeepers in remote, expansive , violent locations face. Give that statistic to a police officer in New York City, though, and I imagine s/he'll appreciate it a whole lot more.

For all intents and purposes, many analysts have argued, the conflicts in Chad, Darfur, and the Central African Republic essentially amount to one regional war. Today, the U.S. Senate officially recognized this interconnectedness, and called on the parties involved to cease all violence, push for peace, and stop supporting rebel groups in one another's territory. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), the sponsor of the bipartisan resolution:

"The conflicts in Chad, the Central African Republic, and Sudan cannot be resolved in a vacuum because they have both domestic and regional implications. A sustainable peace requires good-faith negotiations both within and between the countries with strong monitoring by the international community," Feingold said. "I am pleased the Senate has sent such an important and timely message. The international community cannot ignore the complex cross-border problems that have resulted in great suffering."

While the resolution is largely hortatory, it takes an important step in addressing the chaos spawned by the Darfur genocide holistically, rather than as an insulated humanitarian imperative. Civilians in the region have long been caught in the middle of their governments' political machinations, and ending the practice of interference by proxy will go a long way toward ensuring the security of vulnerable refugees and displaced persons. The international community has a large stake in resolving this situation, and Feingold's resolution rightly calls on countries to support peace efforts and the deployment of multilateral peacekeeping missions.

For all intents and purposes, many analysts have argued, the conflicts in Chad, Darfur, and the Central African Republic essentially amount to one regional war. Today, the U.S. Senate officially recognized this interconnectedness, and called on the parties involved to cease all violence, push for peace, and stop supporting rebel groups in one another's territory. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), the sponsor of the bipartisan resolution:

"The conflicts in Chad, the Central African Republic, and Sudan cannot be resolved in a vacuum because they have both domestic and regional implications. A sustainable peace requires good-faith negotiations both within and between the countries with strong monitoring by the international community," Feingold said. "I am pleased the Senate has sent such an important and timely message. The international community cannot ignore the complex cross-border problems that have resulted in great suffering."

While the resolution is largely hortatory, it takes an important step in addressing the chaos spawned by the Darfur genocide holistically, rather than as an insulated humanitarian imperative. Civilians in the region have long been caught in the middle of their governments' political machinations, and ending the practice of interference by proxy will go a long way toward ensuring the security of vulnerable refugees and displaced persons. The international community has a large stake in resolving this situation, and Feingold's resolution rightly calls on countries to support peace efforts and the deployment of multilateral peacekeeping missions.

From the UN News Center:

The top United Nations human rights official has welcomed changes to Senegal's constitution to make it possible for national courts to try crimes against humanity, paving the way for former Chadian leader Hissene Habre to be tried for alleged crimes committed during the 1980s. Mr. Habre ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, when he was overthrown and went into exile in Senegal, where he has lived ever since. Senegal's National Assembly adopted the latest amendment to the constitution on Tuesday, which together with previous changes allows the country's legal system to deal with such cases. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour welcomed the move as "a very positive development in the struggle to strengthen accountability and an important step forward in the never-ending fight against impunity." During Mr. Habre's rule, thousands of Chadians were allegedly tortured, and unlawful killings and other serious human rights violations took place. He was charged in February 2000 by a lower court in Dakar, the Senegalese capital, but an appeals court later ruled that Senegalese courts did not have the legal competence to try such cases if they were perpetrated in another country.

Read Arbour's full statement.

From the UN News Center:

The top United Nations human rights official has welcomed changes to Senegal's constitution to make it possible for national courts to try crimes against humanity, paving the way for former Chadian leader Hissene Habre to be tried for alleged crimes committed during the 1980s. Mr. Habre ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, when he was overthrown and went into exile in Senegal, where he has lived ever since. Senegal's National Assembly adopted the latest amendment to the constitution on Tuesday, which together with previous changes allows the country's legal system to deal with such cases. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour welcomed the move as "a very positive development in the struggle to strengthen accountability and an important step forward in the never-ending fight against impunity." During Mr. Habre's rule, thousands of Chadians were allegedly tortured, and unlawful killings and other serious human rights violations took place. He was charged in February 2000 by a lower court in Dakar, the Senegalese capital, but an appeals court later ruled that Senegalese courts did not have the legal competence to try such cases if they were perpetrated in another country.

Read Arbour's full statement.

Jeffrey Gettleman brings breaking news of renewed rioting in Kenya.

Riots erupted in Kenya on Tuesday as opposition leaders announced that they were suspending talks with the government over a stalled power sharing agreement. According to witnesses, dozens of young men stormed into the streets of Kibera, a sprawling slum in the capital, Nairobi, lighting bonfires, ripping up railroad tracks and throwing rocks at police officers in a scene reminiscent of the violence that convulsed Kenya in the wake of the Dec. 27 election. "No cabinet, no peace!" the protesters yelled, referring to the stillborn cabinet that has yet to be formed because of bitter divisions between the government and the opposition.

The spark behind the violence -- the first such incident since Kofi Annan helped broker a shaky peace deal over a month ago -- seems to be the question of assigning cabinet positions equitably between both sides. The elected president, Mwai Kibaki, is pushing for a larger cabinet, but is withholding the keys to the more powerful positions, such as the ministries of finance, foreign affairs, and internal security. The specific issue that plagued Annan's mediations -- the question of how much power to assign to the newly created position of prime minister, slated to go to opposition leader Raila Odinga -- does not seem to have resurfaced yet, and, according to Gettleman, opposition leaders deny instigating the protests. Assigning cabinet positions is no trivial matter, though, and opposition leaders will have to work together to come up with a proposal that reflects their parties' near equal levels of support. A similar problem has persisted in Sudan, where one of the most frequently voiced complaints of previously marginalized Southerners is that, even with the signing of a major peace deal in January 2005, many of the most powerful ministries remain in the hands of Northern elites. Best for the international community to invest as much as it can in resolving this problem now, or else it will risk poisoning Kenya's new government.