April 27, 2006
Roundup / opinion on Sudan
from - smijer
Monday, we saw a baby step toward doing something about the Sudanese genocide in Darfur. Four individuals were targeted for sanctions by a unanimous vote in the U.N. A baby step indeed, but at least someone is starting to pay attention. If the Sudanese stop the genocide and do things like this, instead, then they are likely to attract a lot more U.S. attention. (related - also related)
Meanwhile, the Sudanese Government has ramped up military action against rebels and people who live near them in the Darfur region.
Murmers of cooperation between Khartoum & the U.N. are looking less optimistic.
Now, to editorialize.
Over a year ago, the estimated death toll from the Sudanese genocide was, at minimum, 63,000 men, women, and children. That's about 16 of the World Trade Center attacks over roughly a two year period. Other estimates double that figure. Neither Le Monde, nor the New York Times has headlined, "We are all Darfuris." No worldwide coalition has been joined to remove the Sudanese government which aids, abets, and - quite frankly is the responsible party for this genocide.
Why?
When America lost 4000 of her own to violence from Al Qaeda, we stepped up, and the world stepped up with us. When it was our turn to help put an end to killing on a much larger scale, we opted instead to invade Iraq, where the murderous regime had long ago settled its score with Iraqi rebels and the blood had long dried - while letting the Sudanese genocide continue. Where are our hearts? Our eyes? Our minds?
It is a shame that bin Laden and Iran have to cozy up to the Sudanese government in order to raise even the least bit of American interest - and then, who knows if that will even spur our interest? Maybe Hollywood can help.
* Worth noting: I do not think a war in Sudan is the best first resort. I think the best first resort is to write up war crimes charges, then send in special ops to bring out the responsible parties for trial in the Hague or elsewhere. If this, along with more pressure to allow UN peacekeepers and watchdog groups doesn't bring about a change in direction there - then, maybe, as a last resort - war.
Posted by smijer at April 27, 2006 08:06 AM
It is a damn damn damn shame Smijer, that we have not done anything but some lip service on this issue. Can of worms. Events like this have made me rethink what I believe in forgien policy. I used to be an isolationist. Shoot, I don't know anymore. Should we be the police of the World? Should we allow things like this happen? We have the power to do something about it, but do we have the right? Perhaps we should sayt "piss on the rights issue" and save some lives.
|
Posted by Henry on April 27, 2006 06:42 PM Link to comment |
Henry,
You're right - it is a damned shame... and it is also a difficult question. What do "we" have the "right" to do (always with the other side of that coin - what do we have the "responsiblity" to do)?
I have a few isolationist tendencies, but I don't think I am philosophically in that camp. Borders, after all, are manmade inventions, and arbitrary ones at that. Without respect for them - and respect for the sovereignty of governments that control the land inside of them - we cannot hope for anything more than perpetual war and the resulting spoilage of the fruits of all human labor. But on the other hand, we cannot deify those borders and governments, either. Would you leave a child to die in a house fire because an imaginary line separated "your" land from the house across the street? Of course not.
So, we need to mind our own business in many ways, but we have a moral obligation to help when our fellow humans outside "our business" need what we can provide. And therefore, we need legitimate - read "legal" - rights and responsibilities in this case.
The big question then, is from where do we derive legal authority to intervene outside our own borders? From the U.N. - a collection of government representatives whose leaders could never agree on anything, and whose main purpose is to represent the interests of their home government? I don't think so. Still - maybe that's better than nothing at all.
Would that there could be a world-wide, *popularly elected* body with a constitutional mandate, with the very specific purpose of creating international law and settling international disputes. The only problem is that hell will freeze before that becomes a reality - or even a reasonable possibility.
So, in the meantime, we have to make do with the U.N. and other such international organizations, and do the best we know how to. We wouldn't have to worry so much about whether we were "within our rights" to arrest a Sudanese despot or occupy the Darfur region with peace-keeping troops if we could just trust our individual governments to be guided in such actions by reason and conscience, rather than self-interest.
That's one reason it is so important to raise awareness of issues like this - to give the legitimacy of world-wide popular opinion - to the course of action that finally stops the massacre in Darfur.
|
|
Posted by smijer on April 27, 2006 10:48 PM Link to comment |
