America’s allies in Europe have rejected an Administration proposal to deploy NATO forces to Darfur. The U.N.’s humanitarian agencies have done yeoman work to feed and shelter refugees. But the Security Council has been unable to impose broad and effective sanctions on Khartoum thanks to Chinese and Russian opposition.

This leaves the United States, the only country in the world with the capability and, potentially, the will to aid Darfur is and every other group threatened with genocide or brutal oppression. President Bush has certainly been engaged with the crisis in Darfur, more so than any of his alleged moral betters in places such as France and Sweden. Yet having endured so much opprobrium and resistance to his last two acts of international hygiene–the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq–it’s no wonder he’s reluctant to carry another burden, particularly when American interests are not directly at stake.

There’s a lesson here for all of those liberal internationalists who now demand the Administration “do something” in Darfur: If you want to stop genocide, don’t shackle the world’s only policeman. ~The Wall Street Journal

The peace agreed to by the Sudanese government and the rebels of the Sudanese Liberation Army is good news, and to the considerable extent that Washington was responsible for making it possible the administration should receive due credit for this reasonable exercise of American influence to bring the conflict to a halt. Few will find reason to complain very much when America uses her good offices to achieve such results, though one has to wonder whether the hysteria about Darfurian “genocide” over the past three years has been at all necessary to reach this point.

The halt to hostilities, if it holds, is good news for two reasons. First, obviously, it brings to an end the brutal displacement and killing of the inhabitants of Darfur, who have been suffering for two years from Khartoum’s proxy reprisals as a result of the SLA’s phenomenally stupid, ill-equipped rebellion against the central government. That is a genuine success for diplomacy (assuming the deal is honoured), and it marks the second time since taking office that the administration has managed to broker an end to a Sudanese war. If the practical results of Mr. Bush’s other policies were more like his moderate successes in the Sudan, perhaps he would not be the widely loathed and mocked figure that he is today. Perhaps if Mr. Bush were better known for leadership that brings an end to wars rather than being the author of them, there would not be many who would have good reason to revile him.

Second, peace in Darfur deprives Western interventionists, who are hankering for yet another mission of “international hygiene” (no prizes for noting what ideology besides the WSJ’s neoconservatsm describes warfare in terms of its hygienic qualities), of another target. The WSJ gives the impression not so much of the realist warning that Khartoum will dishonour its side of the deal as much as it is hoping this is the case–I suspect they would welcome anything to encourage another round of military interventionism.

Perhaps now that the conflict is subsiding, all the banter about the “genocide” of Darfur will be revealed as the misleading hyperbole that it has been. Perhaps now the liberal internationalist and neoconservative instinct to “do something” about Darfur will be soon as the unnecessary knee-jerk reaction of ideologues that it is.