Now, I don't know if this is the correct policy prescription in any form, but I do know that Bush's call does bring a very large spotlight onto the genocide. Which can only be good. Though I do worry that this may be an example of big booming words followed by much smaller action. Notice what's buried at the very end of the article:
NATO diplomats said in Brussels this week the allies would look kindly on new appeals for help for African troops in Sudan but ruled out for now a major deployment of their own.
The U.N. Security Council has authorized Annan to draw up contingency plans for U.N. peacekeepers to go into Darfur.
Annan has indicated that U.S. help in planning was not enough and emphasized he needed sophisticated logistics, such as air support and intelligence so that soldiers could get to a trouble spots in time.
Washington has been noncommittal on troops for such a mission. If there were to be any significant deployment of U.S. troops in Darfur, it would be Washington's first major foray into African peacekeeping since it quit Somalia in 1994.
Also interesting to note are the two Senators who co-sponsored the resolution "calling for NATO troops to help the African Union `stop the genocide' in the Darfur region."
Both Biden and Brownback are both seeking the White House in 2008 for their respective parties.
This is definitely a story to keep an eye on in order to play witness to whether promises and pledges are followed through on.
- Glitter
No comments:
Post a Comment