September 11, 2004

THE BOY WHO CRIED LAMB:

Reign of Terror (NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, 9/11/04, NY times)

[I] salute the Bush administration for formally declaring on Thursday that the slaughter is a genocide. [...]

[But] I've got some questions. [...]

For France and Germany I sympathized with your opposition to the war in Iraq. But are you really now so petty and anti-Bush that you refuse to stand with the U.S. against the slaughter in Darfur, or even to contribute significant sums to ease the suffering?

Does the Chirac government really want to show the moral blindness to Sudan's genocide that the Vichy regime did to Hitler's?

For the Islamic world You're absolutely right to hold Israel's feet to the fire over its often brutal treatment of Palestinians, but why don't you also care about dead Sudanese? In August, according to a human rights monitoring group, Israel killed 42 Palestinians, including fighters. In the same period, according to the World Health Organization, more than 10,000 people died in Darfur - virtually all of them Muslim.

Islamic Relief is doing an excellent job, but the Muslim victims of Darfur are getting far more help from Jewish and Christian aid groups than from Islamic charities.

For the United Nations Agencies like the U.N. World Food Program are working heroically to keep the victims alive, but the U.N. as a whole has failed to respond to Sudanese atrocities. Mostly that's because of the failure of member states, but I'm afraid that some of the responsibility has to be charged to a man I like and respect: Kofi Annan.

I hate to say it, but the way things are going, when he dies his obituary will begin: "Kofi Annan, the former U.N. secretary general who at various points in his career presided ineffectually over the failure to stop genocide, first in Rwanda and then in Sudan, died today. "


Here's the payoff from the Left's argument that we can't intervene unilaterally in the world for humanitarian reasons. Even when there's a crisis they know they should care about they can't because it would mean siding with the theocons.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 11, 2004 2:38 PM
Comments

This would be the perfect chance for Old Europe and the UN to prove they still matter. Surely they could handle a puny state like the Sudan without US forces. That they still fail to act will drive the Left far nuttier than their acceptance of Saddam. BTW: Is there any oil in Sudan? If not, what will the Left scream about if we intervene ("It's all about Big Sand!!!")?

Posted by: AC at September 11, 2004 2:59 PM

"It's all about the Jews!!!" Middle-East are already saying this.

Posted by: sam at September 11, 2004 3:54 PM

There are promising deposits of oil and gas, and the French Co., Elf(?), has signed with the Sudanese govt to exploit them.

Posted by: ed at September 11, 2004 7:21 PM

The Canadian company Talisman Energy is the largest investor in Sudanese oil. It will be interesting to see how our nutty neighbor to the North squares this with its sanctimonious 'humanitarianism.'

Posted by: Bart at September 11, 2004 10:19 PM

Muslims care? Hardly.

Arabs don't care about black africans whether they are muslim or not. Arabs think they are culturally and racially superior to all others. The facts don't back them up of course, but that's what a good conspiracy theory is for.

Posted by: AML at September 12, 2004 12:52 AM
« IN CASE YOU WERE EXPECTING THE KERRY CAMP TO ACT ANY LESS HYSTERICAL: | Main | GET OVER IT? IT'S WHO WE ARE: »