Bush’s Empty Words on Two Troubled Nations

January 31, 2008, 7:10 pm
Bush’s Empty Words on Two Troubled Nations
The New York Times Editorial Board


Words are cheap. And never cheaper than when humanitarian tragedies are invoked in speeches for dramatic effect or out of a perfunctory sense of obligation with no effective followup.
That looked to be the case when President Bush mentioned Sudan and Myanmar (Burma) — fleetingly — in his uninspiring State of the Union address on Monday night.
“America opposes genocide in Sudan,” Mr. Bush declared as the assembled Senators and Congressmen applauded.
Mr. Bush also drew applause when he asserted support for freedom in Burma. We’re glad both tragedies are still on Mr. Bush’s radar. But mentioning them served only to remind us how much is left undone.
Let’s look at the facts. The United States first called the killings in Darfur genocide in 2004 when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We concluded — I concluded — that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed (militia) bear responsibility — and genocide may still be occurring.”
That was a big deal. Washington doesn’t throw the term “genocide” around lightly. It is reserved only for the most heinous and widespread atrocities like the Holocaust. Good for Mr. Bush for reaffirming that determination for Darfur.
But how will he end the conflict? What does the United States do now? The genocide determination imposes a moral obligation on those who make the accusation. As a signatory of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the United States is committed to preventing and punishing genocide.
After five years of conflict, more than 200,000 Darfuris are dead and two and a half million have been driven from their homes. Still,the killing continues despite endless speeches, United Nations Security Council resolutions and — at long last — a security council decision to mount the largest international peacekeeper force ever authorized.
Unfortunately, only about a tenth of the promised additional peacekeepers are in place and much of the needed equipment has not arrived. Sudan’s government is a major obstacle, but the world community has not done all it can or should to stand up to Khartoum. Mr. Bush’s comments, however welcome a reminder of the problem, didn’t begin to address a way forward.
As for Myanmar, insiders say Mr. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush are deeply concerned about the country’s pro-democracy activists after a crackdown by the military junta last August, and senior administration officials continue to have daily conversations and weekly meetings about how to encourage the junta into some sort of transition from military rule.
But expectations that last August’s protests led by Buddhist monks could end the junta’s domination have long since faded and there is division and confusion over what more the United States and its allies could do to push the process along. The junta has delayed a return of United Nations special envoy Ibrahmi Gambari, who is working on political reconciliation but is increasingly viewed in the West as ineffectual.
And many countries appear to have lost enthusiasm for challenging the junta, either because they are eager for contracts with Myanmar involving resources like oil and gems, or they fear creating instability in the region. (China, India and the Southeast Asian nations are key, but Europe and America also have commercial interests there.)
Still, the crackdown continues. On Tuesday, the junta charged 10 activists detained during last year’s protests and they could face up to seven years in prison. Amnesty International said recently that 700 people arrested after those demonstrations remained locked up and more than 80 were unaccounted for.
So when Mr. Bush says the United States supports freedom in Burma, that’s all well and good. But the same question must be asked as with Darfur: What’s next?