I would like to think that Secretary of State Powell's trip to Darfur (NYT, BBC, etc.) will cause the situation there to be thrust into the national limelight, spurring action to prevent what can already be considered a humanitarian crisis, but I think that I know better by now. Consider these three factors:
- The Bush Administration does not care about Africa (for example, the events surrounding the end of Charles Taylor's reign in Liberia). Not because there are too many difficult problems, but because there are not enough "strategic assets" (like oil). I suspect there is a racist component as well, but that is difficult to prove.
- Our military and national attention is focused elsewhere.
- It is an election year.
Unless we exert subtle yet strong diplomatic pressure upon the Sudanese government, I do not see how things can get better in Darfur. Currently, I am not sure that anything significant will happen, as there is still discussion going on about whether what is happening is "genocide" or simply "ethnic cleansing." In the early 1990s, the UN dispatched peacekeepers to Bosnia because of ethnic cleansing. Now, we are waiting for genocide before we act. Having seen both Bosnia and Rwanda, we have no excuses.
There is an essay (which I cannot find on Google, since I do not remember its exact title) that I heard once on the radio about how death is one of the few things that can command public attention. The essay (if I remember it correctly; it has been a number of years since I heard it) focused on domestic events, where even a singular death can attract attention. Despite how the interconnectedness of the world today, the fact remains that the majority of the public (regardless of geographical location) does not care if a million people who live halfway around the world die. If we do not see ourselves as having ties to those who are condemned, it is as if we are uncaring strangers. "The world is cruel," we rationalize, not realizing that we collectively make it so.
If Bush *did* send troops to the Sudan to quell the genocide, you would label it yet another unilateral illegal act of war. You are quick to utilize the Limbaugh brand of political criticism; always ready to shift your own logic and priorities in order to skewer your opponent no matter which course of action he may choose.
Sudan is an example of what happens when American does not act unilaterally. The Europeans fret, the UN is timid, and the Arab League is silent. There simply is not an alternative to hegemonic American power for change in the world at the present time.
I must respectfully disagree. The situations in Sudan now and in Iraq in March 2003 are significantly different; the United States could have afforded to ignore Iraq, Sudan does not offer that luxury.
My feelings on the Iraq war were and continue to remain mixed. Had Bush originally based his justification for military action upon humanitarian reasons instead of national security, I would have felt more at ease. If he had convinced the UN, NATO, or some coalition of our significant allies of this necessity, I would have been convinced that the war was just as moral and just as Kosovo, where the United States was able to convince the world that a "humanitarian catastrophe" was worth their attention. This is what I would prefer to occur in Darfur.
Your last paragraph contains two sentences which I believe represent two different points of view. While I agree with you that American hegemony is necessary, it need not be unilateral. If America refuses to use its power in order to convince its enemies and friends alike that democracy and freedom are important for all people, we will ultimately be alone in the international stage, bereft of allies and drawn into a multitude of conflicts that will sap our strength and will to intervene.