14 Jun Nicholas Kristof: Western Military Intervention is the Solution to Africa’s Problems
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times (subscription req’d) has figured out the solution to the Darfur crisis, as well as the other humanitarian horrors in Africa: Western military intervention.
One essential kind of help that the West can provide — but one that is rarely talked about — is Western military assistance in squashing rebellions, genocides and civil wars, or in protecting good governments from insurrections. The average civil war costs $64 billion, yet could often be suppressed in its early stages for very modest sums. The British military intervention in Sierra Leone easily ended a savage war and was enthusiastically welcomed by local people — and, as a financial investment, achieved benefits worth 30 times the cost.
Josh Ruxin, a Columbia University public health expert living in Rwanda, notes that a modest Western force could have stopped the genocide in 1994 — or, afterward, rooted out Hutu extremists who fled to Congo and dragged that country into a civil war that has cost millions of lives.
“Had an international force come in and rounded them up, that would have been the biggest life-saving measure in modern history,” he said.
So it’s time for the G-8 countries to conceive of foreign aid more broadly — not just to build hospitals and schools, but also to work with the African Union to provide security in areas that have been ravaged by rebellion and war. A starting point would be a serious effort to confront genocide in Darfur — and at least an international force to prop up Chad and Central African Republic, rather than allow Africa to tumble into its second world war.
I think Kristof makes a lot of sense when he talks about Darfur. The importance of ending military conflict, whether through peace agreement (as the BBC details here) or via an outside intervention, is often underestimated by campaigners for Darfur.
On the other hand, Kristof is beginning to sound like George Bush, or at least Tony Blair. Doesn’t he realize he is talking about violating international law? And if his ideas are followed, expect Mr. Liberal Do-Gooder to be the target of international criminal prosecutions…
By “international force” I assume he means “US troops and some token European support.”
This does smack of White Man’s Burden thinking from colonial times. Kristof must be unaware that these states have significant (for them) military cooperation relationships with Western nations. The focus on the African Union suggests that he is seeking to diminish the Security Council’s roles in authorizing such actions where needed. So this appears to be another veiled effort to slip out of the UN structure.
Best,
Ben
The (il)legality of the intervention is more complex than the post indicates, but I guess that’s inherent to a blog. In the case of Darfur, the problem is that the main avenue for lawful action – a military intervention authorized by the UN under Chapter VII UN-Charter – is unlikely to be open due to Chinese opposition in the Security Council. The legality of other modes of intervention is far less clear.
I find Kristof’s cost benefit analysis puzzling. What empirical basis is it based on? Whose costs and benefits are these? I wish I could say that the Western states are altruistic enough to compare the costs of their military intervention to the benefits accruing to the state where a civil war has been prevented/stopped, but I am afraid that might just be wishful thinking. And, as the Iraq experience unfortunately shows, it is hard to predict when and where such an intervention would end. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say that modest sums were sufficient to suppress a civil war.
The Sudan maintains the fiction that they are not behind the genocide but are unable to control the Janjaweed. Does this not constitute an admission that they lack effective control of the region and therefore are not sovereign there?
At last, some realistic thinking from Kristof. I have long admired his attention to the plight of Africa, but his up-to-now refusal to countenance Western intervention was troubling. IL or no IL, UN or no UN, the only thing that is going to make a difference is if the West, and primarily the US, decides that Africa matters and starts using force to end conflicts there.