Sudan and the Death of Liberal Interventionism
It was not that long ago when the specter of genocide in Darfur mobilized protests and prompted op-eds in The New York Times et al demanding vigorous interventions. Serious people in Washington, DC called for the imposition of no-fly-zones and even air strikes and naval blockades against Sudan. None of that happened, but the U.S. and other Western countries, enthralled with the promise of “African solutions to African problems,” backed AU-flagged efforts such as the AU peacekeeping force in Darfur (AMIS), which was active in the 2000s, at the height of the Darfur crisis. AMIS gave way to a UN operation known as UNAMID, which closed shop in 2020. Today, there is no talk of a replacement. The AU itself seems to have better things to do with its time, though I’m not sure what. In any case, the AU is mostly funded by the West, as was AMIS and UNAMID.
Now, the specter has returned, and Sudan is the site of a human catastrophe at a staggering scale: According to the UN, as of late February, there were 6.1 million displaced people in Sudan and 1.6 million refugees. 24.8 million people needed humanitarian assistance. Citing ACLED, the UN said that there had been 13,900 reported fatalities across Sudan. Meanwhile, the Sudan Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) reports that about 27,700 people were injured between 15 April 2023 and 26 January 2024. As for Darfur, it is once again the site of mass killings and atrocities. People are once again talking about genocide.
Children in a Darfur refugee camp in eastern Chad, 2007. Photo by the author.
Yet no one cares. There are no protests. No calls for justice. No one, least of all in Africa, is rushing to the International Criminal Court to bring charges against the Sudanese leaders responsible for the carnage in their country. South Africa, a dominant player in the African Union, is notably silent about Sudan, even though it is supremely happy to bring libelous charges against Israel.
Indeed, all eyes are on a comparatively smaller crisis, Gaza. One can speculate as to why everyone cares about Gaza and not Sudan, although a key reason is painfully obvious: No Jews, no news. It’s easier to demonize Jews than it is to wade into the complex morass of Sudan’s history and politics, where there are no easily discernable good guys and bad guys in a two-dimensional morality play. In any case, one thing that Sudan proves is that liberal interventionism is dead. “Responsibility to Protect” carries no weight anymore.
The cause of death undoubtedly is the misadventures of the 2000s and 2010s, namely Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. These wars brought home several lessons. Perhaps the first is the so-called “Pottery Barn Rule” associated with then Secretary of State Colin Powell: “You break it, you own it.” No one wants to “own” Sudan’s problems. The second is the truism that “no good deed goes unpunished.” Interventions, even well-intentioned ones, have a strange way of turning against one. To this we must add a certain amount of fatigue regarding perpetually dysfunctional and violent places like Sudan. And perhaps there is a racist element as well: Africans slaughtering Africans is not something that many people care about. Rwanda was so grievous as to shock the international community’s conscience, and the arguments in favor of intervening in Darfur in the 2000s frequently referenced Rwanda. I suspect that in the case of proponents of intervention who were former Clinton Administration officials, like Susan Rice, they may have felt a need to expiate some perceived sense of guilt for their failure to act in Rwanda. In any case, that post-Rwanda concern has proven to be fleeting.
Lastly, wars like Afghanistan smelled of imperial overreach. President Biden appears to be motivated by a sense that America’s interest is best served by retrenching and focusing. It was Trump, of course, who arguably killed UNAMID by cutting U.S. financial support: His blend of isolationism leavened with contempt for multilateralism and, well, Africa, is not his alone.
Of course, the first major indication of liberal interventionism’s death of course was not in Africa but in Syria. President Barak Obama famously balked at intervening and abstained even from responding to Assad’s flagrant violation of the redline Obama foolishly had drawn. His hesitation was perfectly understandable. Just look at what happened in Libya. Besides, taking out Assad risked empowering Al Qaeda or worse, Islamic State. In any case, the Syrian people suffered immensely and continue to suffer, while everyone save Russia stands aside and watches.
The U.S., to be fair, cares enough to have levied sanctions against some of the entities and individuals involved in the current Sudan crisis, and it has been working diplomatically to facilitate talks. On February 26 of this year, the Biden Administration appointed a new Special Envoy to Sudan, Tom Perriello. Per Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s statement,
Special Envoy Perriello will work to empower Sudanese civilian leaders and drive our engagement with partners in Africa, the Middle East, and the international community to forge a united approach to stop this senseless conflict, prevent further atrocities, and promote accountability for crimes already committed.
In other words, his job will be to attempt to herd cats in the hope that they might reach some sort of consensus and act positively. But the Biden Administration absolutely is not committing itself to doing anything more tangible.
Is the death of liberal interventionism a good thing or a bad thing?
In this case, it is a bad thing, as Sudan’s people will continue to suffer. Yet from a narrow point of view of American interest, it seems a good thing. The danger of imperial overreach is real, and one seriously must ask what one can do about a civil war beyond picking sides (which means getting one’s hands dirty) when both sides are odious, and, ultimately, “owning” problems very distant from our own. This does not make what’s happening, however, less cruel.
Darfur refugee camp in eastern Chad, 2007. Photo by the author.
Recommended reading on Sudan/Darfur.
Gérard Prunier’s Darfur: A 21st Century Genocide.
Flint and de Waal’s Darfur: A Short History of a Long War.
Winston Churchill (yeah, him), The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan.