"The gods of history are asking, okay, if we give you a second chance and months of warning, will you do better?"
The Washington Post editorial page today joins the growing chorus calling for serious action to stop the genocide in Sudan:
"It is as though, in the wake of the West's failure to prevent Rwanda's genocide, the gods of history are asking, okay, if we give you a second chance and months of warning, will you do better?"
While it looks like the the United States is now beginning to push for a tougher U.N. Security Council resolution, Reuters reports that serious U.N.-backed action is unlikely.
The Philadelphia Inquirer rightly takes the U.N and the Bush Administration to task for dancing around the g-word, and notes that, "Just the pronouncement that the United States will contribute a small contingent to any international military operation to stop the militias could pressure Sudan's leaders into swift and genuine action."
Meanwhile, the United States pronounced yesterday that we will be sending a contingent of 400 Special Forces soldiers to Greece this summer to help protect the Olympic Games.
2 Comments:
David -- you posted a great story by Amnesty about Darfur. But you fail, Fail, FAIL to note that Amnesty refuses to call it genocide, so far.
"Humanitarian disaster" doesn't require the UN to take action. Amnesty is dropping the ball. So is Human Rights Watch. It was Bush's Sec. of State Powell that i highlighting this, NOT the UN, NOT France, NOT Russia.
Your bias is showing (bad), so is your heart (good). Keep up the heart work.
Here's a question. If Bush leads a humanitarian regime change in Sudan, and saves thousands, he'll probably get re-elected. Do you want that?
Tom - Thanks for your comments. You're right that Amnesty and HRW haven't called this genocide. You're also right that they should. But that doesn't diminish the importance of their work documenting the attrocities. In any case, Amnesty and HRW do not make U.S. policy, and if you're suggesting that President Bush's Secretary of State, or anyone in the Bush Administration, is calling this genocide, then I'm afraid you're incorrect. As of last night, Congress is calling this genocide, and I'm hopeful that the Bush Administration will follow suite.
Your remark that the U.N. is not highlighting this is also incorrect, although certainly, the U.N. Security Council is falling down on the job.
You seem to bring up the U.N., France, and Russia as if to suggest that I have some bias in their favor. It would take more room than I have here to detail my complaints against the foreign policies of other countries. (The Washington Post editorial I linked to rightly lambasts France on this issue.) But I am an American, and I have the power and the duty to hold my own government accountable, which is what I'm trying to do.
The United States, as the most powerful nation on earth, the nation that holds itself up as a beacon of freedom to all mankind, has a duty to excercise its power -- military, diplomatic, economic, and cultural -- to stop the crime of all crimes against humanity. Together, the American people can make that happen. But I doubt encouraging my countrymen to lobby members of the Russian Duma or the French Parliament would be particularly effective. Americans can move France or Russia or the U.N. Security Council to act by moving the U.S government to take the right stand in the right way, which is what is starting to happen.
As for my bias showing, I assume you mean my partisan bias. For the record, I have no interest in hiding my partisan bias (have you read my bio?), and I'm doing everything I can to help Bush find a new line of work. But genocide transcends partisanship. I make no bones about the fact that the Clinton Administration failed the people of Rwanda. I'm also proud to have been an American Air Force officer serving when we halted the genocide in Kosovo, which was on Clinton's watch.
I don't think it's clear that leading a humanitarian regime change in Sudan would help Bush electorally, but I'm more concerned with stopping genocide than with partisan politics. Whether or not he does the right thing in Sudan, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Bush.
Post a Comment
<< Home