THE SPINE JANUARY 27, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The New York Times, which is just as concerned about Darfur as you and I are, published an editorial this morning about the "Unkept Promises..." to the non-Arab Muslims of that wretched swath of Sudan.
While claiming that it will cooperate, Khartoum has repeatedly tried to hobble the force: refusing to accept some non-African peacekeepers,
trying to limit the peacekeepers’ use of helicopters and demanding
other untenable restrictions. Last week, Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan
al-Bashir, chose a notorious leader of the janjaweed, the militias that
have carried out most of the killing, to be a senior government adviser.
The Times hasn't kept up with the body count. Already a year and a half ago, maybe even two years ago, the statistics said that 200,000 had been killed. That's the number still used. If this is number is correct, the genocide has long ended. Which it hasn't. Not by a long shot. It is true that news coverage of the routine massacres is not ongoing. But there have been enough reports to show that the unrelenting war of the janjaweed and the Sudanese government against Darfurians is, well, unrelenting."The world's leaders say they care desperately about Darfur's suffering. But caring is not enough." Yes, yes...that is very true. So who will help? Of course, it is the United Nations (who else?), but the U.N. has an aversion to doing anything that has real effect in that part of the world. "The word of the United Nations is on the line," says the Times. True, true, all too true. And as long as the Times and the other noble minds count on the U.N. to stop this ethnocidal murder it will go on.What is needed is an armed force made up of Americans, Brits, Germans, French, Japanese, Koreans, Canadians, Australians and troops from such of the Low Countries and Scandinavia who want to participate. OK, you want Africans, let there be Africans. But not Africans who themselves have fought ethnic wars against each other. How about South Africa? It is time for that government to take some responsibility against the blood being being shed all over the continent...just to protect Zimbabwe from criticism.
5 comments
I would settle for the US to at least give the 24 helicopters it promised to the peacekeeping efforts there. And by the way, why wasn't Bush pressed about the No Fly Zone possibility when he lamented that the allies didn't bomb German railways during world war two? I think the disconnect between what Bush says and what the US does proves once and for all that Cheney runs this country.
- Maxblum13
January 27, 2008 at 7:02pm
Marty, haven't you heard, our next president has said that genocide is not the criteria for us to use force and that "people who care about Darfur" don't want a no-fly zone. All the other candidates have similarly punted to the U.N.
Mia Farrow, of all people, showed you what has to be done to move the political process -- either man-up and be willing to piss off the voters and the corporate love-fest which is the Olympics or get off the high-horse.
- Lymon1
January 28, 2008 at 6:29am
OK, I've read it five times now -- what the hell does the last sentence in Marty's post mean? Even if we assume that South Africa has some responsibility for the Sudan (one would think that is a debatable assumption, but let's roll with it), what does that have to do with Zimbabwe? More importantly, what does the pre ellipses clause (or sentence, depending on how one wants to read it) have to do with what follows the ellipses.
As for Marty's views of Africans, well, let's look at it for a minute. He says: ", you want
Africans, let there be Africans. But not Africans who themselves have fought ethnic wars against each other." In the sentence before he argues: " What is needed is an armed force made up of Americans, Brits, Germans, French, Japanese, Koreans, Canadians, Australians and troops from such of the Low Countries and Scandinavia who want to participate." I see. So we'll accept Europeans who have waged wars against one another (and in some cases against Africans) but not Africans who have "waged ethnic wars against each another." I suppose the key word here is "ethnic," but of course that presupposes that Africa's wars are about ethnicity and not the high and grand politics for which Europeans and their allies have waged war.
Bad Writing + Bad Logic = Bad Argument.
dcat
- derekcatsam
January 28, 2008 at 3:59pm
Better a million dead Africans than another war, eh NY Times? Same thing with Iraq. Better Hussein wipes out families purposely and regularly than Americans accidentally, eh?
- jwl2672
January 31, 2008 at 1:57pm
jwl2672 --
How can you possibly interpret that desire from the Times' editorial? The Times is opposing inaction in Darfur, and no one has actually proposed war in any serious way. How's about we don't argue with strawmen and create not only false but evil motives for people who oppose the same things i presume you do. It's pretty scuzzy to imply that the Times WANTS Africans to die from an opinion piece quite clearly arguing the opposite.
dcat
- derekcatsam
February 1, 2008 at 10:02am