Daily Darfur: It's Time to Stop Sitting on our Hands

As promised, Nicholas Kristof penned a great op-ed in the Sunday New York Times calling on Obama & Co. to reconsider harsh measures against Khartoum until they end the genocide--measures that the Bush Administration considered, but passed on, much to the detriment of those on the ground in Darfur.

My favorite line:

"The naysayers’ objection was simple: Those are incredibly serious steps, with grave repercussions. They’re right. But then again, genocide is pretty serious, too."

Possible pressure points include jamming all communications in Khartoum, blocking the port (and thus cutting off, among other things, the current influx of cash and weapons and the exporting of oil), and the destruction of Sudanese military aircraft. Note: None of these options says anything about a military invasion (because it simply isn't necessary), and the targeted destruction of aircraft would be to enforce an existing UN ban on offensive military flights into Darfur. (And as is often the issue, if you can't enforce it, why have it at all?)

[Side note: I'm curious to hear what the humanitarian organizations think of these ideas, especially the jamming of communications in Khartoum. Michael?]

Two points:

First, Kristof notes that while President Bush once appeared open to tougher action against Khartoum, he was reeled in by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. This is very interesting, considering that in a recent exit/legacy interview Rice expressed her disappointment over our failure to do anything about Darfur. She points the figure of blame at the "international community’s unwillingness to do these hard things sometimes." (Pot, meet Kettle.) Very interesting, indeed.

Second, I tend to agree with Kristof often, but I'm not so sure about this last bit of today's op-ed:

Ambassador Richard Williamson, Bush's special envoy to Sudan, "has suggested providing surface-to-air missiles to the separate government of South Sudan. Such weaponry would reduce the chance that Sudan would attack the south."

This sounds like the sort of thing that might seem like a good idea right now, but could have serious unforeseen/unintended consequences later on down the road. I generally tend to think that increasing the amount of weaponry in a given area is a bad idea, but this is more of a hunch/gut feeling than anything. Still, you can give someone guns for one purpose, but then you can't control whatever else they might be used for.

Also of interest...

In what must be the equivalent of a blogging "smack down," Kevin at Opinio Juris hammers pro-Bashir propaganda with a series of (factual) refutations of an article in a Jordanian newspaper.