March 24, 2005

WHO DOES HE THINK FORCED THE PEACE DEAL IN THE SOUTH?

The Darfur Genocide: Enough excuses. The time to act is now. (DON CHEADLE AND JOHN PRENDERGAST, March 24, 2005, Opinion Journal)

[W]what is the real reason why the U.S. has not responded as it should have? The truth is that combating crimes against humanity is simply not considered a national security issue. We don't want to burn our leverage on Sudan in the face of issues such as Iraq, Iran and Syria.

The only antidote to this searing truth--the only way the U.S. will take the kind of leadership necessary to end the horrors for Fatima and her people--is for there to be a political cost to inaction. As American citizens increasingly raise their voices and write their letters about Darfur, the temperature has indeed risen. But not enough. We need to make it a little warmer, a little more uncomfortable for those politicians who would look away. Just a few more degrees. Just a few more thousand letters. It is, frankly, that simple.


The real reason is that it is only Evangelicals and the Admoinistration that have pushed Sudan and the Left is reflexively opposed to anything those two do. It's great that Mr. Cheadle is speaking out, but where's he been and where are his Hollywood friends, who can't seem to shut up about Iraq, which we've liberated and democratized, but can't seem to find Darfur, which still needs help, on a map?


MORE:
10,000 Peacekeepers to Be Sent to Sudan, U.N. Council Decides (WARREN HOGE, 3/25/05, NY Times)

The Security Council passed a resolution on Thursday establishing a 10,000-member peacekeeping force for Sudan to reinforce a peace agreement in the south of the country and to lend assistance in the conflicted Darfur region in the west.

The measure, introduced by the United States, drew the support of all 15 Council members.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 24, 2005 11:36 PM
Comments

It is far easier to win out of principle than out of self-interest.

Take WWII, for example. Germany was a few stupid decisions away from winning all of Europe and Great Britain. The U.S. might have contented itself with fighting Japan, or maybe leaving them alone (except for Pearl Harbor). The fascists were fighting out of principle. We were fighting out of self-interest.

The same goes for the U.S. war of independence; the British were fighting out of self-interest.

As much as the Bush's war has been characterized as a war on terror, it is really a war to promote democracy -- in other words, principle, and specifically his principles. The Sudan is also a matter of principle, and if the U.N. had any, it would be easily won.

To summarize: the U.S. is in the U.N. out of self-interest, and, therefore, the Sudan is no longer a matter of principle. In contrast, Iraq was fought outside the U.N.

Posted by: Randall Voth at March 25, 2005 7:40 AM

Randall: I've gotta think about that one. Not sure I buy the theory, but it's intriguing, I gotta give you that.

Posted by: Mike Morley at March 25, 2005 1:19 PM
« WELL, IT IS SPRINGTIME...: | Main | ORTHODOX IRAQ VS HERETICAL IRAN: »