Solutions for Darfur

NY Times today is running an ope-ed about the sitn in Darfur. Mark Helprin thinks the way to end the violence and displacement is to "Make Sudan An Offer It Can't Refuse".
In short: he suggests that US should give Pres. Bashir an ultimatum - leave or else. And then bomb the living daylights out of his civil and military infrastructures.

"Which would the regime in Sudan prefer? To be annihilated, or to discontinue its campaign of mass murder in Darfur? Given Sudan’s record, very few nations would be willing to come to its aid with other than a pro forma whimper, and given the geography and the air and naval balance, no nation could. Though many a repressive dictatorship would protest, and Sudan’s patron, China, might determine to speed up the formation of the blue-water navy it is already building, little else would change except for the better.

This is especially so because only in the worst case would a military strike actually be necessary. One of the chief attractions of such an initiative is that, if properly directed, it could, one way or another, military strike or not, accomplish its aims. These are, first, to stop the mass killings and dislocations; and, second, to pressure Sudan into negotiating settlements in good faith (which it need not do as long as it retains its habitual option of simply murdering the populations it finds troublesome)."

A few thoughts:
* And then what?
After we've bombed them into submission, then what happens to the country? Darfur gets autonomy? Independence? Who is going to support it? It will be like giving birth to a failed state from the get-go. I think the Iraq misadventure has taught us that threatening force, even using it should only come after thorough preparation for the Day After.

* It's only been five years... what's changed?
In other words, what Helprin offers here as newsworthy is really not so new, and not so worthy. Military intervention and the threat of it has been an option for five years now. But very very very clearly, the "international community" has not embarked down that course. What has changed? Not much really. So the question to Helprin then is, if the US or Europe have yet to intervene despite five years of the Darfur tragedy, what makes you think they will do so now?

It is unrealistic to expect an about-face from the world powers. Although the first African American President of the USA might have something to say about that....

Jim Wolfensohn's New Take on Changing World - "The Four Circles"

Former President of the World Bank - no, not Wolfowitz, the former former Pres - James Wolfensohn - respected economist, and global statesman - published an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune a few days ago - ahead of the G8 Summit being held in Germany this week.

He offers a new prism through which to view the global economy - the four circles of a changing world. Suggesting that North-South, East-West divisions are nowadays fatally anachronistic, he suggests there are four levels of development - each with their own concerns moving forward.

Why am I mentioning this on the Peace Post? Well, there's increasing research and discussion about the intersection between poverty and conflict, poverty and terrorism. And Wolfensohn sketches a useful analytical tool for us to use in that effort.
For example, he mentions:

"A third tier - a much larger number of economies, perhaps 50 in all - have experienced growth spurts, but also periods of decline or stagnation, especially once they hit middle income country status.

Spanning from Latin America to the Middle East, these economies have been forgotten by the G-8 leaders. They are neither poor enough to warrant special aid, nor sufficiently large and fast-growing to be major players in global growth. Yet more than a fifth of the people in the world live in these countries."

Now we begin to see how this model may be useful for policymaker --- too poor to benefit greatly from globalization, but too rich to warrant aid and attention....... The Middle East.... over a billion people....

"A fourth tier, a billion people, live in the poorest countries, which continue to stagnate or decline. These countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, gain little from globalization but are among the most vulnerable to its adverse effects, such as climate change and higher natural resource prices. The human tragedy engulfing this group is a huge concern and political challenge to the rest of us."

Wolfensohn ends his op-ed by appealing to the G8 for leadership - long-term, over the horizon stlyle leadership.... not merely on single issues but on forging a new global compact recognizing our interdependency.

Fingers crossed.

ETA Ceasefire ends - what's best policy in handling "terrorist group" ceasefires?

ETA - the group labelled "terrorist" by US, Spanish and other governments and institutions - struggles for an independent Basque homeland - to be carved out of Spanish sovereign territory.

They've had a 15 month ceasefire, and even launched negotiations with the Spanish government - seeking a diplomatic resolution.

Today they announced an end to their truce and a spokesman said it would “take action on all fronts to defend the Basque Country.”

(pic: Time Inc.)

Of course, they blamed the Zapatero Spanish government for their latest action.

Rather than engage in the blame game for this depressing development, let me pose a larger question:- how should governments respond when their terrorist-enemies declare ceasefires and truces? What is the best way to respond to them? --- accept them at face-value, use the opportunity to negotiate? or reject it out of hand as a ploy - perhaps to buy more time or ingratiate themselves with others?

In other words, how should governments react when their avowed enemies suddenly offer to lay down their arms????????

This question obviously is not confined to Spain. Israel, the US, turkey, Phillipines, Thailand and many other governments are fighting groups they call terrorists and insurgents.

My personal thoughts - generalized:- ceasefires and truces by all such groups should be supported by governments and others. Most of these conflicts do not have a military solution - inevitably it will be diplomats that forge a political solution - yes, a compromise - between the warring parties. Faced with that truth, the question then becomes one of timing:- when do we begin those negotiations - at the first opportunity? or delay for more advantage?

I don't think Spain made a mistake in talking to ETA. I can only hope that over the months of negotiations some good-will was established between the respective leaderships that may be preserved until the next ceasefire and inevitable round of negotiations. Let's hope they'll be more successful.