Complexity as an Excuse for Inaction

May 26, 2005

(Editor’s Note: The Carpetbagger Report, as regular readers know, has joined the Coalition for Darfur, a bi-partisan online initiative created to raise awareness and resources to address the crisis. This is the latest in a series of posts from the Coalition.)

A few weeks ago, PBS aired a made-for-HBO film about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda called “Sometimes in April.” Following the presentation, journalist Jeff Greenfield held a panel discussion about world’s lack of response to Rwanda and the similarities to the current genocide in Darfur.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz was among the panelists and during the discussion made the following points:

Wolfowitz: One of the things that bears thinking about from the Rwanda experience, and everyone of these cases is different, and I think one ought to recognize that. But it seems to me that the thing that stuck me as unique about the Rwanda experience, on the one hand the sheer horror of it, with the exception of the Holocaust and even then at a sort of per day rate, this was probably the worst genocide ever. But secondly, and we’ll never know this for sure because you never know the course that wasn’t taken, but it was seem as though a relatively modest military action aimed at eliminating that regime could have ended the genocide and ended it rather quickly.

What strikes me and seems to me is true in Rwanda, is true in Bosnia, is true in World War II, is true in Cambodia, this kind of systematic, one-sided elimination of a population is not done spontaneously by another ethnic group, it’s organized by a criminal gang and if that criminal gang had been eliminated in Rwanda the genocide would have ended.

But that comes to my last point which is, then it depends on how do you conceive of the peacekeeping operation and nobody proposed, that I know of, going in and taking out the government.

Greenfield: Should they have?

Wolfowitz: I think so, yes.

[edit]

Wolfowitz: This is not a simple problem. The Rwanda case, I think, is striking because it at least it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible. But most of these cases are complicated … In a way the Rwanda case is helpful for thinking about things but in some ways it’s misleading because most cases are a little more difficult.

Wolfowitz openly argued that the world should have intervened in Rwanda, but them makes the strikingly disingenuous argument that Rwanda was somehow “simpler” than the current situation in Darfur.

Rwanda is only “simpler” because it is now over and hindsight allows us to see just how, where and why the world failed. But in 1994, with bodies filling the streets, Rwanda did not appear to be simple at all.

U.S. Opposes Plan for U.N. Force in Rwanda
By PAUL LEWIS
12 May 1994
The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, May 11 — As rebel forces of the Rwanda Patriotic Front pressed their attack today against the capital, Kigali, the United States criticized a new United Nations plan to send some 5,500 soldiers into the heart of the Rwandan civil war to protect refugees and assist relief workers, saying it is more than the organization can handle.

[edit]

While not excluding any course of action, Ms. Albright said it remains unclear whether African countries are ready or able to send forces for such a dangerous and complicated mission at the epicenter of a raging civil war.

Ten years later, it now appears as if a few relatively simple measures backed by the necessary political will could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But in 1994, the genocide appeared massively complex and that complexity was routinely cited as a justification for not intervening.

And Wolfowitz is making exactly the same justification for not intervening in Darfur today.

Were there feasible solutions to Rwanda? In hindsight, the answer is obviously “yes.” Are there feasible solutions to Darfur? It is hard to say because right now it seems so complex, but there certainly are if the world powers can muster the will to address them.

But unfortunately, it is far more likely that ten years from now, when perhaps another one million Africans have needlessly died, we’ll wonder why we did not act when “it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible.”

It’s complex because the Chinese are all set up to buy Sudan’s oil, and they also hold a knife to the US jugular. If they decide to sell our T-bills, we’re f-ed. Of course they’d take a massive hit too, since they depend on us to consume their output. But if the government of Sudan is replaced, the Chinese oil contracts could be cancelled, and oil is the lifeblood of all modern economies. They might be tempted to pull our plug, and ride out the repercussions.

Yeah, it’s complex. Understanding “peak oil” makes it a lot less confusing.

  • Do you really think China is going to destroy the world economy in order to protect the genocidal regime in Khartoum? China’s need for oil from Sudan can be addressed and assurances given that any intervention will not harm their oil interests.

    Not everything is about oil. And not everything that involves oil is solely about oil.

  • It’s “complex” because this administration is under the mistaken impression that the little intelligence/help that Khartoum is giving the U.S. in the “war on terrorism” is of sufficient value.

    I personally think Khartoum is throwing the U.S. some scraps so we won’t get involved and this administration is too stupid to see it. Seriously – what are the chances that Khartoum is giving us anything worthwile – or least worth more than the thousands and thousand that have died and will die?

    It is “complex” because it is Africa and this country has a stunning lack of care about anything that goes on in Africa (unless it involves Lybia).

  • What goes unsaid in this debate is that the U.S. was covertly intervening in the persecution of the Christians in southern Sudan, quite forcefully, and ultimately that quieted down. So we successfully saved the Christians, and in the bargain developed a somewhat Faustian bargain with Kartoum. The Darfurians, besides being black, aren’t for the most part Christian (I don’t believe), so there are two strikes against them from a standpoint of looking for intercession by the right wingers in control of our government. The administration managed to keep the forceful intervention in the south surprisingly quiet (well, I guess not too surprising given the state of the media these days), but I can assure you that the missionaries there knew all about it and were cheering them on.

    As for Rwanda, if you want to understand that sad sad chapter in our history I would urge you to read We Regret to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Children, an excellent history of the conflict which also goes a long way to understanding some of the Congo war that’s still ongoing. To see it happening again in Darfur (albeit not with the same intensity) while the world again stands by is nothing short of shameful.

    • Comments are closed.