Intersection with Reality

Every once in a while a New York Times editorial intersects with the harsh reality of international conflict. In today’s editorial, the NYT editors note:

After four years of genocidal massacres that have killed more than 200,000 people, the Darfur region of Sudan desperately needs a peace agreement and a robust multinational force to carry it out. Regrettably, this week’s internationally sponsored peace conference in Libya is doing little to meet those urgent needs.

The problem is not just Sudan’s continuing duplicity — it announced a cease-fire and then promptly violated it. Sudan does not really want a peace agreement. It merely wants more time to let the janjaweed militias it backs in Darfur finish killing or drive off what remains of the region’s non-Arab population.

The editors go on to say that speeches and peace conferences, negotiation and “international pressure” don’t seem to be working. That the Islamic Government of Sudan simply wants to "finish killing or drive off what remains of the region’s non-Arab population.”

Unfortunately the NYT editors can’t bring themselves to endorse the only action that will stop the Genocide in Darfur—killing those state sponsored militias that are doing the killing. Rather, they look for a peace agreement and a "multinational force to carry it out." Does "carrying out" the peace agreement include violent confrontation with Islamist thugs who are slaughtering non-Arab people? If it does, the NYT Editors don't say.

Maybe we should just “give peace a chance” or endorse the long held belief that “war is not the answer.” Nice sentiments, those. Of course, they don't intersect with reality, but they certainly allow those who espouse them to maintain their self-serving moral superiority.

And while we strive for a pacific solution in Darfur, (to quote the NYT editors) “the genocide goes on.”