The Africa Problem
BBC NEWS | Africa | Africa extends Darfur peace force
This conflict has been going on for years now. One has to wonder about the motives behind limited support from the UN. Just as disturbing is the general lack of media coverage in the US. Our government has called the Janjaweed campaign genocide. One would think that genocide deserves a little news coverage. Thank God for the BBC.
My cynicism rises quickly when considering US troop deployments. The largest are Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea. Why aren't we involved in the Sudan when our nominal purpose in taking action in Iraq and Afghanistan were liberation and freedom for their oppressed peoples? I am the first to agree that Saddam was and is a sadistic, despotic madman, but no one has accused him of genocide, only war crimes (War Crimes being apparently a level below all out genocidal activity.)
As awful as this conflict is, it is only one of several issues that make up what I like to condescendingly refer to as "The Africa Problem". You'd be hard-pressed to find more zealots, despots, nutjobs and warlords on a single continent. The African Union is a nice idea, and a necessary one, but how can it hope to survive in its current manifestation. And you thought the EU and UN were weak and ineffectual.
I am not an isolationist. I would have gladly supported a humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Sadistic Despots should only be allowed to stay in power if they were elected. Otherwise I say intervene. But have a plan for f---'s sake. I mean come on. Exit Strategy is good phrase. Two comforting words.
My problem is our selective intervention in ending atrocities. There are no vital US interests in the Sudan, so why should we bother?
Additional commentary from From OpinioJuris
This conflict has been going on for years now. One has to wonder about the motives behind limited support from the UN. Just as disturbing is the general lack of media coverage in the US. Our government has called the Janjaweed campaign genocide. One would think that genocide deserves a little news coverage. Thank God for the BBC.
My cynicism rises quickly when considering US troop deployments. The largest are Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea. Why aren't we involved in the Sudan when our nominal purpose in taking action in Iraq and Afghanistan were liberation and freedom for their oppressed peoples? I am the first to agree that Saddam was and is a sadistic, despotic madman, but no one has accused him of genocide, only war crimes (War Crimes being apparently a level below all out genocidal activity.)
As awful as this conflict is, it is only one of several issues that make up what I like to condescendingly refer to as "The Africa Problem". You'd be hard-pressed to find more zealots, despots, nutjobs and warlords on a single continent. The African Union is a nice idea, and a necessary one, but how can it hope to survive in its current manifestation. And you thought the EU and UN were weak and ineffectual.
I am not an isolationist. I would have gladly supported a humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Sadistic Despots should only be allowed to stay in power if they were elected. Otherwise I say intervene. But have a plan for f---'s sake. I mean come on. Exit Strategy is good phrase. Two comforting words.
My problem is our selective intervention in ending atrocities. There are no vital US interests in the Sudan, so why should we bother?
Additional commentary from From OpinioJuris
<< Home