New Socialist Editorial:
Against “humanitarian” interventions
A vast humanitarian crisis is unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan. A quarter of the population - 1.5 million people - have been displaced and become refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. They live in desperate conditions and face the threat of mass starvation. Tens of thousands of civilians have already been slaughtered by the Sudanese government and paramilitary forces. What should be done about this? Obviously emergency food, water and medicine are urgently needed. Countless billions of dollars are spent every year by the US, the countries of the European Union and other states on the production of weapons. Billions could easily be set aside for emergency assistance and longer-term aid if it was a political priority.
After years of civil war in Sudan, Western governments have at last “discovered” the crisis in Darfur. The UN Security Council has now passed a resolution that threatens the regime with sanctions. The spectre of military intervention by African countries acting as proxies for Western powers - or by Western troops under the UN banner - hangs on the horizon if the Sudanese government doesn’t comply.
Some human rights activists are responding positively to the possibility of military intervention in Sudan. This is a very short-sighted view. It assumes the existing powers in the world can be a force for genuine solutions to social crises. The case for “humanitarian” military intervention involves the simplistic creation of “bad guys” and usually ignores how Western states and corporations are quite prepared to deal with the bad guys if it suits them.
True, Sudanese governments have a long history of human rights abuses and hostility to movements for autonomy. But many advocates of military intervention totally neglect the role of imperialism in the current devastation.
Much of Africa is in a state of economic collapse, leading to mass hunger. Poverty coupled with AIDS has caused life expectancy in seven countries to plunge to under 40.
Western imperialism has distorted the social development of Africa and continues to do so. Arms sales to military regimes, low prices for African exports, IMF-imposed structural adjustment programs including cutbacks to public services, pharmaceutical companies blocking the mass production and distribution of cheap drugs for people living with AIDS - all have taken a vast human toll.
Western governments have displayed a totally opportunistic attitude in Sudan. They have often supported the Sudanese government as a Cold War ally or because they wish to access Sudan’s oil resources. In 1998 the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton launched military action which destroyed Sudan’s main pharmaceutical plant and half of Sudan’s medicines and veterinary supplies. Until very recently, the Bush administration had been trying to improve relations with the Sudanese regime to promote the development of oil.
Why target the Sudanese government now? One answer is that it is a convenient enemy: an Islamic government engaged in murderous actions in Africa while US troops are battling Islamist and other national liberation forces in Iraq. Here’s a chance for the US and UN to appear to be on the right side of the angels and bolster public support for wars of intervention at a time when the occupation of Iraq has left US and British imperialism tarnished with blood and lies.
Sudan is not the only country against which the US may be engineering intervention. Washington is seeking to get rid of troublesome regimes in Latin America that are obstacles to its domination.
In Venezuela, a leading supplier of oil to the US, the White House, Venezuelan opposition and privately owned media of the wealthy have used many means to try and overthrow the democratically-elected Chavez government. In August, the US-backed opposition forced a recall referendum. On August 15, the Venezuelan people gave Chavez a resounding 58 percent plus mandate. This was an important setback for US interventionist plans. Short-term prospects for a direct US intervention to oust Chavez have faded. However the US government has a clear-track of long-term efforts to get rid of regimes from Nicaragua to Cuba.
We must remember that it’s not only the US government that seeks to intervene. Opposition to the US-led war on Iraq helped keep the federal Liberal government at a distance from unilateral US aggression. However, the Liberals have few scruples when the UN or NATO seal of approval is added. Canadian troops continue to be part of NATO’s imperialist operation in Afghanistan. The Canadian government was part and parcel of the game that got rid of Haitian President Aristide.
Whether it flies the Stars and Stripes, the Maple Leaf or the blue UN flag, imperialism is not benign and it offers no real alternative to repressive regimes. For this reason, people who want to change the world for the better should consistently oppose imperialist interventions around the globe - even so-called “humanitarian” interventions.
