February 10, 2005
HARLEQUIN ROMANCES FOR TRANZIS
Court of First Resort (Samantha Power, New York Times, February 10th, 2005)
Ten years ago, I asked Bosnian civilians under siege in Sarajevo where they would go if they could escape. Most chose one of the sand or pebble beaches along the Adriatic. Last summer, when I traveled through the Sudanese province of Darfur, I asked the same question of Sudanese who'd seen their homes torched, their cattle stolen and their children butchered. The surprisingly common answer, whether from refugees wandering the Sahara, or from farmers who had never had electricity or running water, was this: "The Hague." They had heard there was an international court there, and they wanted to go testify.I didn't have the heart to tell them that their attackers couldn't be tried at the International Criminal Court because Sudan was not a party to it and because the United States, even though it was Khartoum's fiercest critic, was likely to block an investigation by the court.
Right.
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 10, 2005 4:50 PMSamantha, because she is a credentialed, professional, and NYT class journalist, comes equipped with a rich fantasy life and an obvious desire to share. We are blessed.
Posted by: Luciferous at February 10, 2005 5:11 PMTurns out that the other frequent answer was the "South Pole," and she didn't have the heart to tell them that the bad ole USA was causing it to melt away.
Posted by: curt at February 10, 2005 5:49 PMShe should take the to see Hotel Rawanda so that they can see how much good the UN will do for them.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 10, 2005 7:23 PMThe International Criminal Court would do what, exactly?
Tell the bad guys to either stop or be frowned upon?
Posted by: ray at February 10, 2005 7:29 PMI was at a Darfur awareness meeting recently.
The attendees were genuinely concerned about the situation there. They are quite frustrated by their inablility to suggest unilateral US action. They are so committed to " international law" and the UN that they see no help coming. One of the speakers correctly predicted that the UN would not declare the situation "genocide" since they had to prove the "intent" of the Sudanese government. The Sudanese, like most of the tyrants in the world, "condemn" the actions of those whom they direct.
The speaker suggested that there are some people who should be "hauled" before the ICC. On that hollow note, we were asked to "get involved'.
And many of the attendees went home feeling good that they had gone to the meeting, were concerned and had "gotten involved"
And still the people die in Darfur.
We have a lot of "speak softly" but no "big stick"
Go see Hotel Rawanda, then wastch Groundhog's Day.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 10, 2005 9:42 PMMaybe the reason they are being slaughtered is that they really *do* believe in the international court.
Just because you've seen your family killed in front of your eyes, doesn't mean you quit being a pacifist. My own Mennonite (Anabaptist) family history is a pretty good example of that.
Posted by: Randall Voth at February 11, 2005 4:23 AMTed,
That meeting sounds like Mark Steyn's neighbor with the 'Free Tibet' bumper sticker on his Volvo. It hasn't freed one Tibetan, and if it gets old or worn out, he gets a new bumper sticker. But it makes him feel so superior to everyone else.
Randall,
Pacifism is just freeloading by another name. And if you can't get mad-dog mean(pace Clint Eastwood) after seeing your family killed for no reason, then you are not much of a man.
Posted by: Bart at February 11, 2005 7:42 AM