Time for action
I understand the painful ethical choices of Abdelrahim’s family, of Hassan and of the international aid agencies. But what I can’t fathom is our own moral choice, our decision to acquiesce in genocide.
Americans could save kids such as Abdelrahim and Muhammad. This wouldn’t require troops, just a bit of gumption to declare a flight exclusion zone, to press our Western allies and nearby Arab and African states, to impose an arms embargo and other targeted sanctions, to push a meaningful UN resolution even at the risk of a Chinese veto, and to insist upon the deployment of a larger African force.
Instead, President George Bush’s policy is to chide Sudan and send aid. That’s much better than nothing and has led Sudan to kill fewer children and to kill more humanely: Sudan now mostly allows kids in Darfur like Abdelrahim to die of starvation, instead of heaving them onto bonfires. But fundamentally, US policy seems to be to “manage” the genocide rather than to act decisively to stop it.
The lackadaisical international response has already permitted the deaths of about 100,000 people in Darfur, and up to 10,000 more are dying each month. We should look Abdelrahim and Muhammad in the eye and feel deeply ashamed.
It won’t stop the genocide, but you can support the Sudanese by coming along to the Flying Scotsman on Saturday night. And bringing your friends, and telling them why they should care.
Sure, Americans could save Sudanese kids.
But that would mean taking action without the support of the UN.
And all good lefties know that would be wrong, illegal, imperialist, Hitlerian warmongering.
The whole Darfur crisis has relevance to your blognite talk last night, Robert. Whether it was their pro-UN bias or their continuing focus on the Abu Ghraib prison torture, the majority of left-wing blogs I was reading at the time ignored Darfur earlier this year and word was getting out on the more right-wing blogs that weren’t so enamoured by the UN and weren’t using the Abu Ghraib tortures to further their anti-war agenda. (Not saying they didn’t have their own agenda – just that Abu Ghraib was less useful as propaganda to them).
Now, one can clearly argue that Darfur and Abu Ghraib are nothing alike – but the disparity of coverage was striking, to me at least.
James, the disappointing thing is that the Right don’t actually care much about Darfur. They use it as a stick with which to hit the UN. (Just look at Evil Pundit’s pathetic comment above. )
I’ve read about Darfur on left-wing blogs (hell, I’m a left-winger and I blog about it) and my left-wing friends are organising a gig to raise money for Darfur.
EP: If Saddam was actively committing genocide last year, I would have supported intervention, with or without UN approval. That the US can admit what’s happening in Sudan is genocide, and then stand back and watch is utterly shameful — and the fact that they’ve squandered their goodwill (and resources) on Iraq is yet another reason to oppose what they (we) did.
James, are you the fellow who asked a question last night?
EP, a searing indictment of hypocrisy on the left. Zingaling ding.
Rob
1) brings up Darfur (which he admits he shouldn’t have ignored in an earlier post)
2) is involved in something that he admits will help in a small way.
3) presents an article that, puts George W. in a fairly soft light.
What’s your prob here sunshine, gonna offer some suggestions or just have a bit of a sook because the left said some nasty, nasty things about the bang up job in Iraq?
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off a rockin’ on Saturday night, you might just get me on your dance card and we can boogie.
James pace topic of Chomsky – AbuGharib got more coverage because they were *our* atrocities, while it is wrong for the media to play onle life against the other, it is a logical bias which hasn’t always been adhered to.
Yes, you’ve written about Darfur but, by your own admission, you ignored it for a while. A lot of people did – which is my point. I’m not trying to criticise your actions now, merely pointing out another example where one part of the blogosphere raised issues that were not being discussed elsewhere, including the mainstream media, until later on – in this case months.
No, I didn’t ask you a question last night.
James, I “ignored” it for the reason that I don’t write much about Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, or AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and SE Asia, or the revolution in Venezuela — my blog is domestic in focus, and as Anthony pointed out, Abu Ghraib came up largely because of Australia’s involvement in Iraq (and if you look at my posts on that topic, you’ll notice that I focussed largely on the Australian lawyer who wrote a disgraceful legal defence of torture). I write about the things I see and am involved in.
I wrote a post on Darfur not because of reading blogs about it, but because I saw a report on SBS. So it was the mainstream (though not commercial) media that brought it to my attention.
(This reinforces my point that blogs tend not to stray very far from the range of opinions expressed in the mainstream media.)
“to press our Western allies and nearby Arab and African states”
The Arabs have made it perfectly clear whose side they are on. The Africans, whether they care or not, are more likely to get involved because refugee are flowing into their country. As for the EU, if they cant even call it “genocide” then they can all just fuck off and shut up care.
“to impose an arms embargo and other targeted sanctions, to push a meaningful UN resolution even at the risk of a Chinese veto”
It’s just not going to happen. Even if there is a UN resoltion so what. Do you think the Sudanese government really gives a shit?
I wouldn’t have thought that anyone (left or right) could seriously think that sanctions could possibly work after Iraq.
The Sudanese butchers want us to negotiate because that just buys them time to finish the job. There is absolutely no point I can see trying to negotiate. There is only one thing that could stop them and that is probably to hard for you all to stomach.
Spell it out, Troy. You might be surprised.
I didn’t mean you when I said “ignore”. At that stage, I hadn’t read your July 26th post where used the word yourself.
But your comment confuses me. You say you didn’t blog about it because your blog is domestic in focus. Fair enough. No issue with that.
But then you say that you blogged when you did because you’d seen a report on SBS and that it was that report that brought Darfur to your attention.
Given the time-sensitivity of the crisis, wouldn’t you have preferred to find out about it earlier? Isn’t this one case where the comment made last night that eventually the story makes it into the mainstream media just isn’t good enough?
Given the time-sensitivity of the crisis, wouldn’t you have preferred to find out about it earlier?
Yes.
Isn’t this one case where the comment made last night that eventually the story makes it into the mainstream media just isn’t good enough?
Yes, but the point here is that the blogosphere didn’t get the story until after it hit the mainstream press. There was no Sudan meme that spread through the internet and forced Big Media to pick up the story.
On the contrary, I blogged about it because the SBS correspondent in Africa, along with NGOs like Amnesty and the Red Cross/Crescent, etc, went and made it a story. If they hadn’t done so I wouldn’t even have heard about it!
“Spell it out, Troy. You might be surprised.”
Either arming the rebels to the teeth or sending in US troops.
I know you woud rather some sort of coaltion of Blue Helmets singinf koombayah but that just wont happen. It will be America and two or three others.
Sending in gun toting gridiron players with southern drawls chanting “U-S-A, U-S-A”. Can you stomach it?
And dont forget this would of course “undermine the UN…help al-Qaeda recruit …. “collateral damage”….and make us a bigger target for terrorism”.
Troy if you’d like to provide me with a good example of the United States preventing genocide in a timely fashion, I’d like to know but in reality the UN is part of a sorry history on non-or late intervention by the whole world.
As someone who was pleased to see a US response to Kosovo and thought non intervention in Rwanda a disaster, you might be surprised what gets the thumbs up. Genocide is serious enough trigger of automatic sovereignty overriding response, otherwise it’s pick and choose, and the record hasn’t been good there.
What he said.
Because we know that worked so well in Somalia.
Send some human shields. And maybe a few protesters with giant puppets.
So can you stomach it or what?
Problem is, the US is kind of busy right now, preventing the genocide of its own people by keeping terrorists and rogue regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. And thanks to the wonderful compassionate elefties, who even now are filling the streets of the world’s major cities with massive protests against the genocide in Sudan (sound of crickets chirping), the US is unlikely to commit significant force to anything other than threats to itself or its allies. Because you know that the first time a stray bullet strikes a civilian, all those moonbats will be out in the streets chanting “US terrorists out!”.
Maybe someone should ask the French, Germans or Russians to do something, for a change.
“Problem is, the US is kind of busy right now, preventing the genocide of its own people by keeping terrorists and rogue regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.”
Oh cool. Hadn’t noticed we’d finally invaded North Korea and Pakistan…
naughty, naughty Laurie
The ALP is saying bad, bad things courtesy of Laurie Ferguson, as noted by Robert Corr. “Labor’s new immigration spokesman has clashed with refugee advocates, claiming they would have a more realistic view if they lived in areas where most…
One at a time, Graham. Be patient.
“Problem is, the US is kind of busy right now, preventing the genocide of its own people by keeping terrorists and rogue regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.”
Try as you might, EP, even you must have noticed they’re doing no such thing. I appreciate your attempt, though.
You’re in denial, Mark.
How ’bout the US destroy the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world – the House of Saud?
EP you are a master of no you are, now wouldn’t that make a handdiddly dandy dance partner, whaddya mean I’m treading on your toes. Now where’s that answer for a dance request, best offer a no-hoper like yourself has probably in months/ years. Heck, I’ll even give the lambada a go, if you’ll promise to bring along an argument that has even a teensy link with reality. Times running out. Genocide – jeez the right had trouble with 100% for Tasmanian aborigines, .00000003% or something of the US population – can’t use that word enough. Do you know what it means?
Now Troy, where’s that answer of yours and what’s this thing about stomachs – who get’s a medal for sending someone else to fight, and since when have gridiron players had guns? And, now I’m on a roll, who the fuck spells Kumbayah – koombayah? Dumb diddly know nothing stereotyping non-researching bad fiction writing bimbo boy. It’s not too late save yourself . EP – it’s too late, doesn’t seem to matter which side of the spectrum you’re on is it?
Now where are my dancing blundstones.
Anthony, see a psychiatrist. Urgently.
Zing again, I’m melllllllting. Stobbbit, for the love of god, stobbit.
“Now Troy, where’s that answer of yours”
I could answer but then we would get into an argument about this and that and no one would convince anyone of anything and round and round we go. I guess you could say that I’ve got blogger fatigue.
My question required a simpel yes or no but no one has to answer if they dont want to.
Again my question:
If it comes down to (and I believe it will) no other countries willing to intervene except for America and a few deputy sheriffs then can yuo stomach it?
It’s grossly unfair that people are criticising Robert for not mentioning it earlier. This has been his first opportunity to use it in a manner which helps him to criticise The Forces of Darkness and Evil in the U.S.A.’ especially Bush, the Evil One.
It was unfair also of someone to mention Labor Shadow Minister, Laurie Ferguson’s, rational response to the nuttier elements in the “refugee” lobby. After all, Robert doesn’t have Laurie’s advantage of actually living in a truly “multicultural” electorate, and dealing with large numbers of immigrants on a daily basis. Robert probably has far more experience in his electorate with emmigrants?