"THE UNITED NATIONS has failed over and over again to prevent genocide. If in the year 2005 the Security Council cannot deal with genocide, the raping of women, and the systematic burning of villages now occurring, then I believe it is fair to ask: What purpose is the United Nations serving in the 21st century?"
If this were some other conservative member of Congress--say, Tom DeLay--lambasting the United Nations, it would be easy to dismiss him as a dime-a-dozen right-wing demagogue climbing on one of his favorite hobby-horses.
But this was Virginia Republican Frank Wolf lamenting the United Nations' fecklessness in the face of the genocide--or ethnic cleansing, or whatever you want to call it--in Sudan's western region of Darfur, where a scorched-earth campaign by the Sudanese military and its janjaweed militia allies has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and left 2 million people homeless.
No serious person can doubt that Wolf, whose district includes part of Fauquier County, is passionate about the human-rights situation in Sudan. And no serious person who has been following the United Nations' reaction to Darfur's suffering can fail to share Wolf's frustration.
The congressman's comments followed the release of a U.N. commission's report last week that said the Sudanese government and the janjaweed "are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law."
The commission, however, declined to go quite as far as Wolf, his fellow members of Congress, and the Bush administration. It said the violence in Darfur did not amount to genocide, although it did assert that some individuals, including government officials, may have committed crimes with "genocidal intent."
The report urged the Security Council to refer the Darfur atrocities to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecutions.
It's easy to be cynical about the commission's hedging on the question of genocide. Under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention, an unambiguous declaration of genocide by the commission would have put the United Nations in a position of having to do something to punish and prevent the widespread and systematic crimes in Darfur.
As it stands now, the Security Council faces no such obligation under international law. Sure, the United States will introduce a new resolution on Darfur, one that may call for measures including sanctions against Sudan's oil industry, an assets freeze and travel ban targeting government and janjaweed leaders, and enforcement of a no-fly zone over western Sudan. But you can bet that a resolution with any teeth to it will meet firm resistance in the council--much of it from veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China. France may play an obstructionist role, too.
As this sorry spectacle unfolds in the coming days and weeks, it will be useful to remind ourselves that these three countries not only are blocking meaningful action against the Sudanese government, they've actually aided and abetted Khartoum in its cleansing of certain ethnic groups from Darfur.
Here's how:
China: The Chinese have been Sudan's principal arms supplier over the past decade, furnishing Khartoum with an abundance of tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades.
China also is heavily invested in Sudan's oil industry and depends on the country's oil fields to supply the Chinese industrial dragon with a sizable portion of the energy it needs to keep growing.
Not surprisingly, Sudan's weapons purchases are funded largely by the revenues that its oil industry generates.
Russia: According to a November report by Amnesty International, the Sudanese government imported four MiG fighter jets from Russia in December 2003 and January 2004. Khartoum was expected to have imported a total of 12 new Russian MiGs by the end of last year.
These purchases coincided with the use of MiGs against civilians in Darfur. When I met with refugees from Darfur in September, several told me their villages had been attacked by MiGs in late 2003 and early last year. Human-rights groups also have cited the use of MiGs in raids on Darfur villages.
The Russians, too, have ties to Sudan's oil industry. Last summer, as the crisis in Darfur continued to worsen, a Russian company inked a deal to build an oil pipeline in Sudan.
France: The Amnesty report found that the French have sold large quantities of bombs, grenades, ammo, and other military items to Sudan in recent years.
The French corporation Total holds the rights to an oil concession in southern Sudan.
The United States must confront these forces of complicity and greed by pushing hard for a tough Security Council resolution on Darfur. Paradoxically, Washington's hand will be strengthened if it also shows a willingness to bend a bit.
The Bush administration opposes letting the International Criminal Court try Sudan's war criminals, because it fears legitimizing a legal body that, it claims, could some day launch frivolous prosecutions of U.S. citizens.
But some Republicans, ranging from Sen. John McCain of Arizona to former Bush administration official Jack Landman Goldsmith, have urged the White House to adopt a flexible approach to the ICC dilemma. That's wise advice, because Washington's backing of ICC prosecutions could soften France's opposition to sanctions against Sudan.
All the key players on the Security Council will have to exhibit moral courage and a willingness to compromise in order to meaningfully address the situation in Darfur.
This won't be easy for any of them, but if they can't do something soon to end Darfur's misery, more and more people will be asking questions about the United Nations' relevance.
RICK MERCIER is a writer and editor for The Free Lance-Star.