OT - Day 113 of the President's Silence (Darfur)
 

Link: NYT: Day 113 of the President's Silence

Full Size:
Day 113 of the President's Silence
By Nicholas D. Kristof

Finally, finally, finally, President Bush is showing a little muscle on the issue of genocide in Darfur.

Is the muscle being used to stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of villagers? No, tragically, it's to stop Congress from taking action.

Incredibly, the Bush administration is fighting to kill the Darfur Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from strafing villages.

The White House was roused from its stupor of indifference on Darfur to send a letter, a copy of which I have in my hand, to Congressional leaders, instructing them to delete provisions about Darfur from the legislation.

Mr. Bush might reflect on a saying of President Kennedy: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there are other signs that the administration is trying to backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of African Union troops needed there.

Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death toll: 60,000 to 160,000. Every other serious estimate is many times as high. The latest, from the Coalition for International Justice, is nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a day.

This is not a partisan issue, for Republicans and the Christian right led the way in blowing the whistle on the slaughter in Darfur. As a result, long before Democrats had staggered to their feet on the issue, Mr. Bush was telephoning Sudan's leader and pressing for a cease-fire there.

Later, Mr. Bush forthrightly called the slaughter genocide, and he has continued to back the crucial step of a larger African Union force to provide security. Just the baby steps Mr. Bush has taken have probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

So why is Mr. Bush so reluctant to do a bit more and save perhaps several hundred thousand more lives? I sense that there are three reasons.

First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and ended up with a mess.

Second, Mr. Bush is very proud - justly - that he helped secure peace in a separate war between northern and southern Sudan. That peace is very fragile, and he is concerned that pressuring Sudan on Darfur might disrupt that peace while doing little more than emboldening the Darfur rebels (some of them cutthroats who aren't negotiating seriously).

Third, Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A. recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for consultations about the war on terror, and the White House doesn't want to jeopardize that channel.

All three concerns are legitimate. But when historians look back on his presidency, they are going to focus on Mr. Bush's fiddling as hundreds of thousands of people were killed, raped or mutilated in Darfur - and if the situation worsens, the final toll could reach a million dead.

This Thursday marks Holocaust Remembrance Day. The best memorial would be for more Americans to protest about this administration's showing the same lack of interest in Darfur that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of Jews. Ultimately, public pressure may force Mr. Bush to respond to Darfur, but it looks as if he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Granted, Darfur defies easy solutions. But Mr. Bush was outspoken and active this spring in another complex case, that of Terry Schiavo. If only Mr. Bush would exert himself as much to try to save the lives of the two million people driven from their homes in Darfur.

So I'm going to start tracking Mr. Bush's lassitude. The last time Mr. Bush let the word Darfur slip past his lips publicly (to offer a passing compliment to U.S. aid workers, rather than to denounce the killings) was Jan. 10. So today marks Day 113 of Mr. Bush's silence about the genocide unfolding on his watch.

Ah, the good ol' NYT ... never let reality get in the way of some good hyperbole.
That line alone made the article worth reading.

You know what we should do? Open up Super Wal-Marts in Sudan. The people would be so amazed at the low low prices that they'd surely stop killing one another.

Actually, on the subject of Darfur, this is my favorite column (advocating arming the citizens of Darfur):

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-.../s_319251.html

I especially like the quote from Amnesty International spokeswoman Trish Katyoka:

Ah. Because things are going so swimmingly for those being slaughtered right now.

That's not the answer. The Wal-Marts would just exploit the workforce and it would be worse than it is now!

I'd point the finger at Kristof for that line, rather than the NYT (who didn't collaborate to write the line). It is an op-ed piece after all. But why let reality get in the way of some good hyperbole?

Sorry NoMyths, but I blame NYT for it, and here's why ...
" Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times since November 2001, writes op-ed columns that appear each Wednesday and Saturday. Previously, he was associate managing editor of The Times, responsible for Sunday editions. ... Mr. Kristof joined The New York Times in October 1984, initially covering economics. After that, he served as a business correspondent based in Los Angeles, Hong Kong bureau chief, Beijing bureau chief and Tokyo bureau chief. In 2000, he covered the presidential campaign and in particular Governor Bush, and he is the author of the chapter on Mr. Bush in the reference book "The Presidents."

My point? It's not exactly like this guy isn't known to them, nor how/what he writes. After 21 years, I'd say he's got the "endorsement" of the NYT, and it seems pretty reasonable to hold them accountable for what they pay him for writing.

maybe we should drop micheal moore over there.. he'd have this cleared up in about 20 minutes :rolleyes:

Jeez Ragone, I thought I was bloodthirsty but dang ... imagine the impact crater he'd cause.

supersize me indeed

What is the reality? Ignoring the messenger, what's all that wrong about the message? Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but isn't genocide bad, and shouldn't we be doing everything to stop it? We sent 100,000 troops to Iraq because Saddam was a dictator and we wanted to free his people (that's the current line anyway). So what's wrong with stopping genocide in Africa?

That really wasn't my point, my point was the absurdity of the claim that this was the subject that historians would focus the analysis of this Presidency on.

The reality is, like it or not, wrong or not, is that relatively few people actually give a flying fuck about this situation. The entire Sudan could vanish tomorrow & there'd barely be a ripple outside the media. This just isn't a subject that resonates with mainstream America.

And that's what makes it difficult to imagine it ever being anything more than a historical footnote (and I suspect even that is stretching it), much less the focal point of any historical hindsight.

Makes more sense, but I see it as being a little more than a footnote. Maybe not in a U.S. History book.

regardless its a shame that we dont fulfill what we said we would do (with the rest of the Allies) in stopping Genocide and eliminating it from our future. Sure the story might be crap but its a shame that we dont value all lives the same.

Shame or not Flasch, that's reality.
(And why my comment was on the absurdity of the claim about future "history", not on the story itself).

Just in case anybody could use/wants a quick thumbnail of the fighting in the Sudan, here's something I found that might be handy.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...ionshipsa.html
Sort of a "Who's Who" of the situation.

The column doesn't go into a lot of detail, though. Will training on the weaponry be included? What kind of guns? Handguns, shotguns, or fully automatic rifles? Will these be effective against helicopters?

And what do we do when the Sudanese government escalates the conflict by labeling the newly-armed citizens "terrorists" and brings in more military hardware? Do we now arm the citizens with Bradley Fighting Vehicles? Will we include body armor this time?

I agree. When historians write about the second Bush Presidency, they're going to focus on 9/11 and Iraq. Period. However, I'm sure in any discussion of Iraq, Darfur will be mentioned. Given that ever since the WMD angle dried up, the Bush Admin has played up the saving of Iraqis from an oppressive regime, the parallel to Sudan will require some sort of comment.

Any oil in the Sudan? We only work for oil.

Having not followed this situation, where is the United Nations in all this? Why does the US need to take the lead? Did not the nations of the world after WWII mutually agree that genocide was intolerable? Where are the other western democracies?

theyre signing the Kyoto agreement...

I love how we pick and choose what to be a leader on and when we want others to lead us. con-ven-ient....

We LEAD the way into Baghdad, but then we say "why should we lead"...CUZ WERE FUCKING LEADERS!! thats why. We should do what is rigth at all times, not because it's convenient.

That line alone made the article worth reading? Not the fact that thousands are dying in Darfur and our President is actually trying to stop Congress from doing anything about it? I'm glad you have your priorities straight.

Sadly, we seem to rarely do what we rarely do what is right or convenient, whoever is in charge.

That's why I like President Bush, he doesn't just make us work for free! Save that for the communists. :)

I remember in the late 90s I was sent all sorts of e-mail petitions protesting Taliban atrocities and treatment of women. Nobody gave a crap about the Taliban or Afghanistan then, but look how people suddenly went on notice after the September 2001 attacks--Afghanistan certainly isn't a footnote now (though it could have been)

Who knows how things will play out in the next 10 years, maybe Darfur won't mean a damn to anything. But our inaction has the potential to signal yet another autocratic goverment to believe they can act with impunity. We've been down this road before, and it's led to problems for us in the end almost every time. Also, as has been no doubt mentioned before, the populace of Darfur is much more recruitable for terrorist activity now, and this could be a problem for us if we are perceived to be too close to the Sudanese government...

Umm, it's a column, not an article. I hope you know the difference. Kristoff is one of their regular columnists, the same way William Safire was for 30+ years. Maybe you don't know who he is either, and mistook his columns for articles the same way. In any event, it's pretty funny.

Another autocratic government? You mean like the ones they have had for 50 years now?

The government of Sudan has had a strongly Arab character since the country's independence in 1956; it has been a military dictatorship since 1958. The First Sudanese Civil War, between the Muslim government and the mostly non-Muslim population of the southern Sudan, started in 1955 and ended with the 1972 Addis Ababa Accords. In 1983, the Second Sudanese Civil War broke out when the president declared Shari’a law in the south. A ceasefire was declared in 2002. Peace talks in 2003 produced an agreement under which state revenues — oil money in particular — would be shared between the government and the southern rebel groups.

Gee Yabanci, I never heard of these here "colummists" writin fer a newspaper.
I thought we wiped them out thanks to Mister Raygun.
:rolleyes:

I know who he is, who he's married to , what he's won, etc.
I also know that, regardless of all of those things, he's also subject to the discretion of at least cursory editing. And IMO no responsible editor worth two cents would have allowed such an absurdity to reach print, I don't give a damn who wrote it.

But that's the NYT, not exactly an outfit I find to be paragons of responsible journalism, integrity, or even a reasonable amount of common sense.

The NYT is lefty but it's probably the best daily in the country Jon. Seriously, what's a better paper?

Honestly? Damned near anything.

(Technically, that isn't quite true -- there'd be no shortage of candidates that would tie for last place)

Well, the NYT sports section is still pretty sucky, but the international news coverage is incomparable to almost every other American news daily...

:eek: im so shocked :)

Honestly, it comes down to strategic significance. Trying to quell a region that is (and has been) a hotbed for international terror for a few decades vs. doing the same for a region that has not been much of a threat to the west nor has much strategic significance to the US economy.

While it sounds cold (and is), it's the reality of being president. You don't have the resources or political capital to go out and put down every evil dictator in the world - so you have to pick your battles. And, getting a somewhat representative government in Iraq and more parts of the middle east is much more important for US secruity than doing a similar activity in Africa or even parts of Russia.

Still, I would like to see the US get more involved here and think this would be a great opportunity for the UN to once and for all show it actually cares about preventing genocide. Then again, they will probably just name the Sudan the head of the human rights coalition next time around.

I could be mistaken, but wasn't Al-Q in Sudan before they moved to Afghanistan? Wouldn't that help to qualify them as a hotbed for international terror? It certainly qualifies them more than Iraq, which had no international terrorism.

I'd be interested in seeing any state-sponsered terror from the Sudan to the West in the past 20 years, as well as any known Sudanese terrorists. The Sudan has always been a bit of a wild card, but never on the threat level of an Iraq or Iran.

Again, if we had the resources to deal with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the Sudan, I would be all for it. But, if we have to choose, the Sudan is the least likely to have an impact on the war on terror. Still, I see no reason why the UN can't enter on the behalf of the world and have the US be a supporter in their effort. It would be a great way for the UN to show that it still can provide a valuable service to the world (something that appears in doubt to many).

Iraq (Hussein) was one of the key founders of the various PLO terror wings. This was not a secret, either; it's one of the reasons for Hussein's popularity outside Iraq. It's true they were not really associated with Al Qaeda.

Can you produce any state-sponsered terror from Iraq to the West in the past 20 years, as well as any known Iraqi terrorists? You can probably find a couple terrorists, but non-Palestine related terrorism was not something you used to find in Iraq. Which is why I find it puzzling that people are defending non-action on Sudan by talking about how it's unimportant in the WoT, considering their past ties to Al-Q.

lol, pull out the rolley eyes when called on making dopey comments. Try to save face. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Well damn Y, if your post wasn't :rolleyes: - worthy, I don't know if I've ever seen one. There's no face-saving involved either, I just figured if you couldn't connect the dots on what I was saying, I'd be nice enough to try to break it down & explain it to you.

If that doesn't work for you ... well, go fuck yourself, I won't waste any more time on you.

Your "connection of the dots" is what I'm laughing at.

PLO, attack on Kuwait, funding of numerous organizations including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, using WMD on his own people, trying to assasinate a US president - want me to continue? Not to mention the fact the Iraq (as a country) was a main safe haven for parts of Al Qaeda (even if it wasn't always sanctioned by Saddam) and the sheer number of UN violations for both Human rights and terror activities. The Sudan can't hold a candle to that. Heck, Saudi Arabia and Syria are more of a threat than the Sudan and they don't even stack up with Iraq on terror issues or human rights.

Do you honestly believe the Sudan is more of a threat to US interests and world terror than Iraq or Iran? If you do, you would be doing a 180 degree turnaround on the opinions of Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. I can't believe that you really believe that and think (hope) you are only trying to play devil's advocate here.

You can't swing a dead cat in the middle east without hitting a country that supports the PLO. If you call the attack on Kuwait a terrorist operation then our attack on Iraq was a terrorist operation. Using WMD on his own people is no threat to us, and if you contrast that with the genocide in the Sudan it is nothing.

The Sudan, with its genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, can't hold a candle to the human rights abuses of Iraq? :confused:

The biggest threats to US interests are Iraq and Iran, because of the oil angle. Sudan would be just as much a threat to world terror as Iraq used to be (now, Iraq is a much greater threat). Think about it, why would Iraq or Iran ever overtly attack us? They can't invade us, they can't take us down, they can't out-nuke us, and any big attack would only wreck the world economy. There is no incentive for it. Attacks are going to come from the amorphous groups, not the rogue states (except for maybe North Korea, that guy is just insane). Saddam and the Mullahs are authoritarian dictators, but they are not irrational.

Not all aggression has to be classified as "terrorism" to be a danger to the US and our entries. If Iran decided tomorrow to attack Iraq it would an enormous danger to western interests, but not necessarily "terrorism" as it is defined today.

They are certainly no worse that the mustard gas attacks Saddam made on millions of Kurds. Not to mention the level of torture and maiming that has been state-sponsered for decades. For argument's sake, I will say they are comparable. But again, Iraq not only has the human rights end, but also the strategic significance angle.

When has the Sudan state openly sponsored terrorism against western interests, attacked one of its neighbors, contracted assasination attempts on Western leaders or funded outside terrorism groups? Iraq has done all four and I can't recall the Sudan doing any of the four. Again, they are a bit of a wild card in some of their population, but their government hasn't been nearly as dangerous to western forces as Iraq.

You mean like try and assasinate a US president? Possible greed, anger over US involvement in the middle east, to increase its power structure, historical claims (a la Kuwait). Plus, the worry about Iraq wasn't that they would necessarily attack the US, it's that Saddam's scientists would sell his secrets and weapon creation methods/products to rogue terrorist groups. Last I checked, that's not much of a fear in the Sudan.

And where do you think many of these groups will get their weaponry, funding and safe harbor to train? Removing Saddam from that equation is much more significant than some barren land with little money/scientific knowledge in the Sudan.

dola, posted this in another thread. It appears the UN doesn't even think what's going on in the Sudan is genocide :rolleyes:

Here's the main problem with everything going on:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/afr...193541?mode=PF

Well, youre somewhat correct. Colin Powell was the only US official ever to say that what was going on in Sudan was genocide and since then, we've reversed our stance. Just last week, Robert Zoellick, Rice's deputy refused to call it genocide and said Colin Powell himself was the only person ever to say that and we (USA) dont support that position.

The USA and the UN will NEVER do anything 'official' about Sudan until Khartoum pays off a good deal of its debt to the world bank, or they magically lose all of their oil and Russia and China have no stake in the region anymore. This whole situation is even further corrupted by world politics, its just not the USA whos doing nothing, its the entire world.

The World Bank and IMF just gave the Sudanese government more money in December, didn't they?

Im pretty sure they did, I couldnt find it on the worldbank.com website, but i think they gave them an additional 2.5 billion just recently. Which im sure is to be repaid via oil money. Funny how that works. Does anyone understand why we give money to "help" Sudan to the ones who are sponsoring the genocide?

That was a little aggitating, but he was meeting with representative from the Sudan to try and broker a peace deal when that comment was made. The important step was the the administration pledged $1.7 billion to the Sudan for it's recovery and senate leader Bill Frist recently said the following:

"The Khartoum government will not stop this killing until it is faced with stiff international pressure," Frist said. "Every day the world fails to act, Khartoum gets closer to its genocidal goal, and every day the world fails to act it compounds its shame."

It's pretty clear that US wants some kind of action from the UN to occur, and is pledging big bucks to help out.

Great point and I had forgotten that angle. It's certainly becoming more and more political on the world stage.

I found this. It's not specific about any sum, though. It appears that the IMF and World Bank did agree to give more money to them in December when it was well known what was going on there.

http://www.sudantribune.com/article....d_article=7172

Actually, Sudan has an extensive record in sponsoring outside terror groups. It is most well known for harboring al-Qaeda and many other Islamic terror groups. Most notably, Osama bin Laden was based in Sudan in the mid to late 90s. They have sponsored terror groups against their neighbors in Egypt, Ethiopia, and Uganda (notably the very brutal Lord's Resistance Army), and using insurgent groups like the Eritrean Liberation Front as proxies in their antagoinistic relationship with their neighbors to the south. They have also been supporters and harborers of Hamas, Abu Nidal, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, and the GIA, the Algerian islamist group who have also also gone after French targets. The Sudanese are also alleged to have ties to an Islamic group who tried to assassinate Hosni Mubarak in the 90s.

Sudan has moved on and off the US Government lists of state-sponsors, depending on our relations with them at the time--so people don't always think of them when it comes to state sponsorship of terrorism.

Sounds similar to Syria. But, again, they are not in the threat realm of an Iraq or Iran.