Sudan: End The Human Rights Crisis In Darfur
Sudan: Rape as a Weapon of War
Sudan says conflict 'not genocide'
While the international diplomatic community debates whether or not the tragdy that is Darfur rises to meet the legal definition of "genocide", the murder, rape, and displacement continues unabated.
While Nero fiddles, Rome burns....
KHARTOUM, Sudan -- Sudan's foreign minister has rejected a U.S. Congressional declaration that bloodletting in the country's western region of Darfur amounts to genocide.
Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail insisted his government was doing all it can to end the conflict in Darfur which so far has killed 30,000 people and forced a million to flee....
So far neither the Bush administration nor the U.N. has said the conflict is genocide -- a step which would authorize other nations to intervene under international law.
Foreign minister Ismail said that Sudan agrees with the African Union, which has refrained from calling the atrocities genocide, a crime punishable under a 1948 U.N. convention....
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said last month he was not ready to describe the situation in Darfur "as genocide or ethnic cleansing" but he did call it "a tragic humanitarian situation" and raised the possibility of international intervention.
Arab militias have killed up to 30,000 people in Darfur, most of them black Africans, and driven over one million from their homes since the conflict began last year.
Of course, Darfur has the disadvantage of being an exceedingly remote region with relatively little economic value. Without any oil, for example, the likelihood of the Bush Administration contemplating involvement is minimal. People will need to be convinced that what is happening rises to the level of genocide- the legal definition be damned.
At some point, does it not become incumbent upon the international community to stand up and say "ENOUGH!!"? The Sudanese government may protest that Darfur is an internal matter, but enabling systematic rape and murder on behalf of a recognized government is deplorable. No civilized government- or people- should be cruel and heartless enough to content themselves with splitting legal fine hairs. The problem, of course, is forging a consensus among countries about how to deal with the problem. It is easier, of course, not to mention safer, to sit on the sidelines. After all, why risk the dangers involved when you don't have a dog in this fight?
At some point, governments, and the people they represent, need to understand that to ignore the genocide in Darfur is to become complicit in it. Inaction is tantamount to endorsing the murderous policies of the Sudanese government. No man is an island....
If we can invade Iraq on the basis of lies and half-truths, should we not be able to contemplate involvement in Darfur when confronted with compelling evidence of genocide? Ignoring the genocide in Darfur only diminishes our claim to the moral high ground and places our own humanity in question.
"Without any oil, for example, the likelihood of the Bush Administration contemplating involvement is minimal. People will need to be convinced that what is happening rises to the level of genocide- the legal definition be damned."
This seems contradictory when compared to the usual critism of Bush foreign policy seen here at TPRS. Generally you critisize Bush's proactive actions in Iraq and minimize the fact that the Iraqi people have benefited from the lack of a murderous and corrupt dictatorship that embraced acts of genocide.
Here, you seem to be critisizing him for not getting invovled in Darfur. Make up your mind will ya!
BTW, the absolutely un-factual reference to oil as a basic motive for our actions in the middle east does nothing for your credibility.
Some of us have been calling for action against the Sudanese government since the Clinton Administration.
But given the fact that it is usually black Christians being persecuted and killed, the Democrats weren'te interested. they already had the black vote locked up.
I'm glad you posted this, Jack. Sudan is my area of interest - met with an Ambassador to Sudan last week - and that's the region that I'm now focused on helping. That's why I'm doing the blogathon.
My next post will be about Sudan and I'll shut up about my potato chips.
Well, of course it is way overdue for the so-called "international community" to inject itself in Sudan. But who is that, besides the UN? And is the UN going to take action against a member of the Human Rights Council? Not real likely. It's a little out of the range of NATO.
And if you are talking about "us" (meaning US and some coalition) as long as we have about 1/2 of the US population believing that a commitment of forces into a "sovereign" nation must be multilateral (read: UN-blessed) unless there is some kind of imminent threat to the security of the US, what would you have us do?
In terms of a political party in power here, the choices are: (a) do nothing, and be left alone (not criticized) by 99% of the media and public; or
(b) go in and clean up the mess as best we can, with the least amount of loss of life, and be bludgeoned by everyone with an "anti" agenda --- especially if an extended presence is necessary to maintain order and build some infrastructure.
As I recall, France and Germany and Canada don't seem to have much on their plate at the moment. Maybe one or more of them could pop in and get some changes made in Sudan.
Terry,
Canada is considering assistance in a peacekeeping mission to Sudan, but realistically, all of our available forces are locked up in Afghanistan, participating in the Global War on Terror.
Just because the Canadian government disagreed on the validity of Iraq as a target in the War on Terror shouldn't be taken as a sign that we're not committed to that War. Our troops are working with your troops. You're just not paying attention.
Oh, and our warships are back in St. John's, Newfoundland at the moment. Once the crews get their rest and get back in the groove, they will likely be sent back to the Persian Gulf where they will join the American-led coalition on its anti-terrorist patrols.
Yes, it does. Like in Iraq.
Amen, brother.
We could bribe the UN Security Council. It worked for Saddam. But other than that, as Terry Ott pointed out, what are you going to do?
Hear hear!!
Yes!! I have rarely heard the rationale for invading a sovereign nation that does not directly threaten yours be put so eloquently. I whole-heartedly agree.
The fact that the UN was perfectly willing to be complicit in systematic rape, torture, and murder in Iraq, just like in Sudan, only reinforces my belief that a nation powerful enough to intervene alone is morally obliged to do so when the world turns its back on a helpless people.
My site has linked to an article from the Calgary Sun that deals with the manner in which the media has covered the sudan story.
"So just what IS the difference between a "humanitarian crisis" and "genocide" "
That's easy. Just ask the leftist dominated UN.
As it turns out, Sudan has oil.
"France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan."
From this BBC article.