0 thoughts on “Brown on Darfur”

1. What would you propose he do?China gives Sudan diplomatic cover in the UN, and buying them off would only encourage more of the same. The UN is blocked, and the AU will not move without a UN mandate, or at the least a decent payoff to make it worth their blood and a solid promise of cover in the UN for themselves. You can expect calls of colonialist interference from all the usual suspects, and quite frankly, Labour have expended all their political capital and then some fighting that battle.No, he’s expressing his opinion, like the rest of us do, but it’s no more his decision than it is ours. There’s nothing Gordon can do, and everybody knows it.The only people outside Sudan who could do anything are the Chinese, who have financial interests, and are in any case not about to set any precedents that could be later used against them; and possibly the world press, who could if they wished give the atrocities there saturation coverage like they do for more trendy conflicts.Unless one is prepared to both make a break with the dysfunctional UN and develop a properly funded alliance of civilised nations willing to act to stop genocides and depose dictators and maniacs, and to pay the price for that which is bound to be heavy, then people like those of Darfur, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Tibet, Palestine, Myanmar and so on will continue to pay the price instead.The UN may be the best we’ve got, but that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t build something better.

2. The point about China is well made. Another reason why the west cannot intervene is that our troops are preoccupied in a pointless war in Iraq and are being outwitted in Afghanistan.

3. Whether it is pointless or whether we are being outwitted are questions I would dispute, but not here. I would agree that neither the US nor UK has much spare capacity for the moment. (Unless we were to pull some of our troops out of hotspots like Germany or Cyprus, or heaven forfend, recruit some more!)But that wasn’t the reason I didn’t mention it. The reason was that even if we had a large army available, we couldn’t legally go in without either the Sudanese government’s or the UN’s say-so. It requires the UN security council to identify the situation as a threat, and to conclude that sanctions either would not work or have not worked – to give them a last chance to comply. At that point, either the UN or the African Union – or even Gordon Brown – could do something about it. (The UN charter allows for “regional arrangements” to take such action independently of the UN, so long as they do so in conformity with the purposes of the UN charter and its resolutions until the UN can take responsibility for maintaining the peace – Articles 52-54.)That’s why I said that the fundamental problem is the diplomatic cover China is providing. Until the UNSC passes a resolution like 1441, or we withdraw from the UN, we have no choice but to watch them die. Arguably, it is better that China can stop us diplomatically than by other less peaceful means, but in my view there comes a point when the price of peace grows too high.Anyway, we’ve been told by the Europeans and others that all this foreign military adventurism is a poor solution to the world’s problems, and that diplomacy and negotiation and suchlike is a much better way. While we’re busy defending democracy elsewhere, now’s your chance to prove it.It’s somebody else’s turn, and we’d be pleased if you were to take this golden opportunity to show us by example how you were right and we were wrong, and how much more effective and moral your way is. We’ll watch with interest to see how you get on.