Saturday, September 02, 2006

What's Another 10,000 Lives A Week?

NIF gets veto power over forces that might stop its genocidal actions in Sudan.
In the face of ongoing genocide in Darfur, the international community's failure to accept the "responsibility to protect" (that's United Nations language, officially adopted) innocent civilian lives has taken its last, abject form. The National Islamic Front (NIF) regime in Khartoum, made up of the very men who have for more than three years orchestrated the systematic destruction of Darfur's African tribal populations, has been told directly and unambiguously that there will be no U.N. peacemaking force without its consent.

In the revealing words of British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, Khartoum's agreement to U.N. deployment "is quite crucial" to taking any meaningful action. Jones Parry's words have been repeated explicitly by U.N. and U.S. officials, as well as officials of other countries possessing the military resources that are the only possible source of protection for approximately 4 million people in Darfur and eastern Chad -- people whom the United Nations describes as "conflict-affected" and in growing need of humanitarian assistance.

Don't you just love that term "conflict-affected"? Sure makes it easier for the UN and the international community to maintain blind eyes to their own "morally-declined" status.
The Sudanese regime has been powerfully encouraged by these repeated assurances. Moreover, the NIF has diplomatic backing from the Arab League in opposing any U.N. deployment, along with expedient support from countries such as Eritrea.

These circumstances force a question that has been skirted not only by governments but by human rights and policy organizations, as well as advocacy groups, newspaper editorials and American politicians (including all in Congress who voted in July 2004 to declare that the situation in Darfur constitutes genocide): With the clear prospect of humanitarian collapse and massive civilian destruction, will the world continue to defer to Khartoum's claims of national sovereignty? Has the grim shadow of Iraq, and fallout from the crisis in Lebanon, paralyzed the Western democracies in responding to a terrible "genocide by attrition" among the African tribal populations of Darfur?

Further, does the fact that Sudan is regarded as Islamic and Arab protect its government from being held responsible for the ultimate crime? All too much evidence suggests that the answer, on all counts, is yes.

Frankly, I don't know enough to assess how much truth there is in Reeves' last paragraph.

But it's pretty clear to me, at least, in surveying so much of the breaking news around the world over the past several days, what worldview is rapidly gaining the upper hand.

And who and what is enabling that.