On Frankness (and Action)

Call it what you will -- being blunt, direct, straightforward -- the use of frank speech in the foreign policy arena is always refreshing. This is true not only because of the manner of diplomatic discourse itself, with its nuances, indirection, and concern not to give offense, but because frank speech about sensitive subjects is sure to bring howls of protest from the sensitivity crowd.

So it's notable when two straight-speaking op-eds marking the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide appear on the same day in the New York Times. The first, by Emmanuel Dongala, recounts his surreal experience of watching that genocide unfold on TV from his home in Brazzaville, Congo. Dongola attacks the "Africanly" correct way of thinking, which causes many African intellectuals and leaders to withhold criticism from leaders who, at some point in their past, acted honorably. Thus, thugs like Robert Mugabe are given a free ride lest one appear to side with white farmers. Significantly, Dongola is himself a refugee.

The second piece, on the disaster unfolding in Sudan, is by Samantha Power. She argues persuasively that Western and African leaders are once again standing aside while genocide is committed against blacks in western Sudan by the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum.

Neither writer suggests that the US should send the Marines to every hot spot on earth. But acting doesn't always consist of shooting, especially when inaction and support of the status quo, whatever it is, so often substitutes for policy decisions. A consistent belief among Democracy Project's officers is that intervention abroad -- whether diplomatic, economic, educational, or (at times) military -- can make America safer even as it saves lives and brings stability to world trouble-spots. After September 11, it's clear that Fortress America is an impossible dream. If we can't decide to stop genocide, we have little hope of laying the foundation of civil society in dysfuntional states.

Update: Brent Tantillo tells me that the rebels in the Darfur region are seen by some as being as brutal as the Khartoum regime. Their goal, unwittingly encouraged by some in the West, is a separate state. Sudan just made Freedom House's list of World's Worst Regimes for 2004, so tragedy begets tragedy in this ravaged country.