Darfur demands more focus

The burgeoning humanitarian dilemma in the Darfur region of Sudan received scant attention in George W. Bush’s and John Kerry’s foreign-policy debate, which focused largely on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

However, the troubles in Darfur — where perhaps 50,000 have died and more than 1 million black Africans find themselves in danger from rampaging Arab-African militias — hold a prominent place in the minds of many readers of this column.

I have written about Darfur several times during the past year and, a month ago, invited readers to comment on how they would resolve the tensions there. My stated preference has been for the African Union to take the lead in righting the wrongs in Darfur, and for the United Nations to champion a more aggressive stance against what unquestionably amounts to genocide.

But should those groups fail to act in the short term — and this situation must not drag on without strong action — can the United States afford, as some suggest, simply to look away? Moral responsibility, in my opinion, compels a different response: military intervention, ideally with international backing.

Some of the 418 readers who responded chided me for suggesting that the United States involve itself in yet another conflict. They asked, “Do you really think the American people would support another war? Do you think we would ever get out? Must we always ride to the world’s rescue?”

Brad Gwinn of Winter Park, Fla., wrote, “Any so-called international solution should be without U.S. involvement.” Why? Because that would mean the United States’ taking on 95 percent of the manpower, 99 percent of the financing and 100 percent of the criticism. “Sudan’s problems should be handled by the African Union and the United Nations.”

Jennifer Smith of Freeport, Ill., captured many readers’ frustration by suggesting that “there needs to be more media coverage (of Darfur). Before we know it, this is going to be another (Rwanda-type) slaughter, and in 10 years everyone will say, ‘Why didn’t we do something to stop this?’ What is the solution? I wish to God I knew.”

Richard Harlan, a Summerfield, Fla., resident, advocated a greater sense of urgency, noting that “whether we like it or not, we cannot escape our international interests. We must intervene because we can. In fact, we have an ethical responsibility not to allow situations like (those in) Iraq and Sudan to exist.”

Finally, a group of 27 university students from American University in Washington, D.C., recommended various options: economic sanctions; full sanctions; working through the United Nations; economic sanctions with the threat of U.N. military intervention; economic sanctions with the threat of full sanctions; consideration of military intervention through the United Nations or another coalition; full sanctions, with the possibility of military intervention; U.N. military intervention and war-crimes investigations; nothing; diplomacy; and the inability to propose a solution.

In light of those wide-ranging views and the lack of consensus, Bush and Kerry could help shape, stimulate and sharpen the discussion by giving the Darfur issue the higher profile it deserves in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

— John C. Bersia is an editorial writer for the Orlando Sentinel and the special assistant to the president for global perspectives.