Mr. Bush, Take a Look at MTV
Nicholas Kristof, NY Times Editorialist
Speaking of "revisionist history", Nicolas Kristof takes on, rather belatedly, the serious subject of Sudan's ongoing genocide, and implicates Bush as a virtual non-participant on the issue.
Mr. Kristof's commentary is filled with past (and selective) historical accounts of the US's "blind eye" towards genocide in the world. Then he goes on to suggest that Bush is now adding a new chapter to that with his so-called uninvolvement with Sudan/Darfur.
This, of course, is the same commentator who refused to recognize Saddam's genocide, calling Iraq's quest for democracy Bush's "Iraqi adventure". This is also the same commentator who proclaimed that an invasion of Iraq would add further threat to the US, never considering that it could domino the thirst for freedom in an oppressed region of the world.
As an aside, did you ever notice how liberal editorialists, even today, still love to call Iraq an "invasion" and "occupation" instead of a "liberation from a sadistic regime?"
To his credit, Mr. Kristof appears to come from a warm fuzzy side as a human being, and devotes much of his dissertations to saving children, lamenting AIDS, and blasting wars in general. All in all, lofty goals and wishes that we all share. But there comes a point in time where the idealistic must meet the realistic, and here Mr. Kristof continually fails.
First and foremost, the US has not turned a "blind eye" to Sudan and Darfur.
It was the US and Colin Powell who first said to the UN in no uncertain terms, that genocide was THE word. The UN itself declines to apply that same word because it would entail legally triggering actions they do not wish to do.
This is not a blind eye by the US. It is, undoubtably, a deliberate blind eye by the UN.
Also on record are John Danforth's leadership and herculean efforts since the late 90's to get the UN to mediate the feuding parties, as well as his organizing and witnessing of the various treaties the battling sides have signed (and reneged) of late. Mr. Danforth's dedication to the Sudan/Darfur genocide speak volumes of the US involvement and perspective, and is not indicative of a "blind eye".
All in all, the eyes with blinders on do not belong to the Cowboy Prez or the US officials. And, for all intents and purposes, the UN is the big dog on the porch for this issue at the moment. Translation? We all know that means a lot of talk and no action for quite some time.
The united African countries do not wish military intervention from the international community, and have only recently requested the presence of a small number of UN peacekeepers. So despite our tag of genocide, which the UN so solidly rejects, the ball is not in the US court for action. We have no violations of resolutions as of yet, and we have been told in no uncertain terms that our presence is not wanted.
So what is it Mr. Kristof rails against? What does he suggest?
Meanwhile, President Bush seems paralyzed in the face of the slaughter. He has done a fine job of providing humanitarian relief, but he has refused to confront Sudan forcefully or raise the issue himself before the world. Incredibly, Mr. Bush managed to get through recent meetings with Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair and the entire NATO leadership without any public mention of Darfur.
There's no perfect solution, but there are steps we can take. Mr. Bush could impose a no-fly zone, provide logistical support to a larger African or U.N. force, send Condoleezza Rice to Darfur to show that it's a priority, consult with Egypt and other allies - and above all speak out forcefully.
Not "forcefully" raising the issue? I'd say labeling it genocide in the face of the UN's denial is quite forceful. In fact, I could also add that Mr. Bush has forcefully raised opinions on UN doings - or should I say non-doings - often enough in his terms, and been slapped down by the likes of Kristof and other commentators for doing so. Indeed, even trying to replace Mr. Danforth with a US ambassador who has a forceful voice is meeting with serious Dem opposition.
A no-fly zone. LOL! Well now, that will really help curtail the genocide. These are technologically challenged forces perpetrating their violence not with missiles, but with ground forces. What is Mr. Kristof thinking?
As a nation, we would gladly provide logistical support to an African or UN force, but no one in the international community apparently wants it. So, to appease Mr. Kristof, we would, again, have to act "semi-unilaterally" ... my new oxymoron creation for a US coalition that the world insists upon seeing as only one country. And I somehow doubt that is what he has in mind for being more "forceful".
All in all Mr. Kristof's approach to this heartbreaking humanitarian crisis appears to be less laden with stellar suggestions for multi-laterial aid, and more about seizing on yet another avenue to misinform and malign the Cowboy President.
Mr. Kristof and MTV would be better leveling their accusations at the UN and the African coalitions of countries that do not want international interference. For it is they who are the parties ignoring genocide. But considering the "flavor" of both these mouthpieces, it seems more likely they will unduly whine about an administration that has done more about the situation than the international community combined has done thus far.
No comments:
Post a Comment