Warum interveniert der Westen nicht im Sudan?
Flashing forward 20 years, we have the same college protesters and church activists as we did in the mid-2000s. Only today, they are calling for Gaza to be free and not Darfur to be saved. And the lessons of Rwanda and Srebrenica have been replaced by more recent examples of America’s overreach, which includes two decades of terror-fighting deployments. But the most impactful lesson for contemporary policymakers is America’s action in Libya in 2011 when, prompted by a group of “liberal hawks” close to the president, including Samantha Power, the Obama administration sought and obtained a UN Security Council resolution to oust Muhammar Gaddafi and prevent what was framed at the time as an imminent genocide against the people of Benghazi. As NATO’s intervention quickly succeeded, and Gaddafi’s state began to crumble, Washington came face-to-face with the unpleasant realities of the full application of a responsibility to protect doctrine. The most vigorous opponent of the “liberal hawks” was then-Vice President Joe Biden who recalled asking, “OK, tell me what happens? He’s gone. What happens? Doesn’t the country disintegrate? What happens then? Doesn’t it become a place where it becomes a—Petri dish for the growth of extremism? Tell me what we’re gonna do.” Today, Biden is likely asking the same questions about Sudan, but he is no longer a dissenting voice in an administration. He’s the president.
Hier der ganze Text: