In an age when our leaders instruct us that there is evil in this world and you cannot negotiate with this evil, but must aggressively confront it and defeat it, it is interesting to see that a true evil in this world is being ignored. We were told repeatedly that crimes against humanity and a government's oppression of its citizens was excuse enough to launch an invasion and free the poor souls, but yet it is interesting to see that we would rather use empty words than manly deeds in regards to Darfur. It is interesting to see that we would rather negotiate with the bloody hands of the Sudanese government, rather than defeat this evil. It is interesting to see that some would rather "stick it" to the UN than actively work with others to solve a humanitarian crisis. There has to be a reason for this casual dismissal of genocide...
And there is a valid reason, there's no oil. UPDATE: (It was just alerted to me that there is oil in Darfur, my bad) The crisis in Darfur has been an issue for quite some time, but now it seems to be getting worse:
The crisis in Darfur has exploded in recent weeks, and now threatens to drag fragile neighboring countries into a regional war.
Both Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR) have become engulfed in fighting that involves a toxic mix of rebel groups, government forces, armed militias, and civilians.
...
"The internal conflicts in Darfur, Chad, and the CAR are now linked by the regional presence and movement of armed groups, arms, and civilians across the three borders," said Georgette Gagnon, deputy director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "And of course, the regional governments are using these insurgencies to carry out a proxy war against each other."
Indeed, leaders in Khartoum, Sudan's capital, and N'Djamena, its Chadian counterpart, have traded accusations as to who is responsible for stoking the bloodshed that has plagued Darfur since 2003. Both countries blame the other for supporting rebel groups.
Bush was too busy overseeing the disaster known as Iraq. The U.S. Congress was too busy naming federal buildings and sniping at the respective opposition party. The American media was too busy talking about Mark Foley, Britney Spears parenting abilities and Kerry's botched joke. All of us were too busy to see that a region of Africa has degenerated so far that internal violence has killed over 200,000 people and it appears the violence and bloodshed could now to be spreading into a regional war between various African nations.
This is Darfur:
And this is Darfur:
As is this:
I just thought I'd remind everyone.
Bush issues a general concerned statement but he seems content to push the entire issue aside and leave it for the UN to deal with. Kofi Annan, the outgoing UN Secretary-General, talks about it, but negotiations by the UN with Sudan have proven fruitless and will continue to be fruitless until the United States takes a more active role. In his farewell speech Annan basically pleads with the United States to get more involved:
But, as Truman said, "If we should pay merely lip service to inspiring ideals, and later do violence to simple justice, we would draw down upon us the bitter wrath of generations yet unborn." And when I look at the murder, rape and starvation to which the people of Darfur are being subjected, I fear that we have not got far beyond "lip service." The lesson here is that high-sounding doctrines like the "responsibility to protect" will remain pure rhetoric unless and until those with the power to intervene effectively — by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle — are prepared to take the lead.
I can peruse through the internet and find a multitude of articles detailing the way John Bolton was suitably seeking a robust UN force to enter the Darfur region to bring about peace, and that he was not going to back down from his commitment to th region. Was he really because it seems to me that the anti-UN Bolton was more interested in "sticking it" to the organization he despised than actually attempting to create substantive reform or solutions to the various issues around the world. What did Bolton think about Kosovo in 1999:
You cannot say that there is a sufficient American interest involved to warrant the casualties that I think we're about to face. And that's where the president is likely to come unstuck, because he does not have the political support in this country at the moment for the long-term sustained campaign you're talking about.
...
Our foreign policy should support American interests. Let the rest of the world support the rest of the world's interests.
Did he change so much in seven years, or was it all cosmetic:
Reuters’ Evelyn Leopold reports today that the Western alliance’s "short list" of individuals to be subject to international sanction for their criminal responsibility in Darfur is, indeed, a very short list. According to her report, six or seven members of the Security Council have agreed to a list of only four names. Bolton does not seem perturbed in the slightest.
...
Last week, Reuters reported that the original list of 17 names generated by a UN panel of experts got whittled down to about 8 names in a draft compiled by Britain. The US, however, did not agree to a number of these names, forcing the lists’ continuing diminution. Now, to account for the pathetic list, Bolton only meekly offers, "That is really a down payment on what we expect will be additional sanctions."
He can't even find the time to visit the region with other representatives from the UN Security Council. As a matter of fact, not a single U.S. representative joined the mission. Here is a an accurate list of Bolton's failures concerning Darfur:
Strike One, Bolton is on the wrong side: In October 2005, Bolton blocked the U.N. special adviser for the prevention of genocide, Juan Mendez, from briefing the Security Council on possible human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region. Bolton was joined by China, Algeria and Russia. Bolton’s move was opposed by Secretary General Kofi Annan and 11 Security Council members, including U.S. allies.
Strike Two, Bolton fails to lead: In February, Bolton served as president of the Security Council. Bolton’s approach failed to persuade even some U.S. allies in Africa and Asia to join the United States to authorize the deployment of U.N. troops to Sudan's Darfur province. Bolton’s leadership style so alienated members that he sometimes called meetings to order with no other members in the room.
Strike Three, Bolton is absent: In early June 2006, our closest U.S. ally the United Kingdom provided innovative, effective leadership by hosting a U.N. Security Council delegation to Darfur to advance humanitarian relief and agreement on a U.N. peacekeeping mission to stop the genocide. Bolton chose not to go on the delegation. Instead, he traveled to England to give a speech in his personal capacity to a conservative think tank.
Bolton didn't give a shit about Darfur because Bush doesn't give a shit about Darfur. They gave "lip service" and pretended to be firm and resolute on the matter, and apparently fooled a lot of people, but when it came down to action and not words (Bolton always claimed to prefer action to words) they did nothing nor did they ever intend on doing anything. It is the same "lip service" that Annan was deploring in his farewell speech.
Nancy Pelosi had this to say about Darfur:
We cannot stand idly by as the Sudanese government continues its systematic destruction of the people of Darfur. We are compelled by the conscience of the world to put an end to this humanitarian disaster and restore dignity and hope to the Darfuri. If we do not, we betray our commitment as the protector of human rights, and risk compromising the very nature of our own conscience.
Bush isn't going to do anything and neither was Bolton, so it is up to the Democratic Congress to now stand up and ensure that the next Ambassador to the UN will not just pay "lip service" but will use all his/her powers and diplomatic skill to work with the UN and bring a peaceful resolution to the bloody conflict. We're not going to get it with the empty words of Bush, much like his empty slogans are not going to win the war in Iraq, but by making an effort, a true effort, and putting all our influence, what is left, to pressure the Sudanese government to stand down and also to ensure that a robust UN peacekeeping force is about to operate in Darfur and protect the people there. Nothing else is good enough. Speaker Pelosi, the ball is in your court. I'm sorry that you have to take up the slack of the do-nothings like Bush, Bolton and Hastert. Something serious must be done because God knows George Clooney and Save Darfur t-shirts aren't going to solve the problem.