Darfur is a situation which easily draws reactions from people, and well it should. It's injustice; genocide. There has been a real call for action by a lot of people: the Save Darfur campaign has collected half a million postcards which will be sent to the President asking for a 'stronger multinational force' in Darfur.

I've got a problem with the call for action. The end goal is not military action. The end goal is peace, and this has not been a part of the Save Darfur campaign. Peace achieved through the deaths of all non-Arab Darfuris would be meaningless, and so there is a need for a strong military force to defend the Darfuris currently being killed and starved by the fighting. However, after saving lives, we must turn to the healing of the deep divisions within Sudan's peoples. Without this, violence could again break out, making present military efforts meaningless. Attempts at healing can very easily be scuttled in the course of saving lives. This is a very thin, blurry line, but it's one which we must walk.

I think the actions of the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, may be a case of scuttling. Bolton recently asked for sanctions against individuals responsible for war crimes in the Darfur conflict. This may provide a deterrent to the people currently committing war crimes in Darfur. It's a step toward justice.

However, it could endanger peace talks currently underway between important groups in the conflict. The mediations headed by Egypt's Salim Ahmed Salim, said that the move could 'harden the position of some of those involved.' Peace in a place like Darfur subject to genocide will be a tenuous thing, possibly for decades. But efforts to heal the rifts that have been formed here must be made once there is an end to the fighting. This means we need an end to the fighting'an end which the United States may be putting in some danger through our actions in the UN.

Where does this relate to the call for action in the United States. and the need to temper it? First, I realize that the Save Darfur campaign did not call for these sanctions. I also realize that punishment of war criminals will likely be part of the healing process in Sudan. However, I think that we want to do this after the peace talks have succeeded, not before. I also think that support for action in Darfur may have put pressure on the Bush administration to 'do something now.' I don't know what's motivating Bush or Bolton. But I do know that I signed a postcard which stated my support for 'a stronger multinational force' in Sudan. It did not state my belief that the peace talks'not military action' are the most important thing going on in Sudan right now, from the most important angle'that of long-term peace.

It's unreasonable to ask campaigns supporting intervention to stop genocide to include reminders of long-term peace next to their equally important calls for action.

Ken Farrell

Freshman

English