4.06.2005
|
Darfur Accountability Act
This fairly modest piece of legislation is a good start, although the entities to which it would assign responsibilities are not likely to be effective. The Darfur Accountability Act, does, however, call genocide in Sudan by its proper name.
Very few mainstream media heavies seem to have noticed that an Arab government is pursuing a course of genocide. One of the exceptions is Nicholas Kristof of the Times, who could be called the conscience of the MSM on the matter of Darfur. Today, he once again reminds us that it is not sufficient to simply call what is happening genocide. It is necessary to take action.
Now, Kristof is a classic liberal, multilateralist, and the entities that the Darfur Accountability Act calls upon to do something do not have a good track record. To say the least. These are the worse-than-useless United Nations Security Council, and the Grand Collective of Thugs and Muggers, a/k/a the African Union. So, one might argue that it's better to do nothing than something that is bound to fail. On the other hand, it's possible that if the United States and its European allies banded together to actually enforce UN Security Council resolutions, who knows, some innocent lives just might be saved.
This is what we did in Iraq, if memory serves. While most of the rest of the world yelled and screamed about big bad unilateral United States, we actually got rid of one of the most heinous regimes on the face of the earth. Should we, could we, do the same thing in Sudan? Doubtful. Thanks to the efforts of Bush 41 and Clinton, our military has been shredded, and can barely subdue some ragtag insurgents in Iraq. But how much military force might it take to get the Sudan Arabs to stop supporting genocide? Perhaps some bombs delivered to the right addresses? Perhaps enforcing, with brutal efficiency, a no-fly zone and shooting down all aircraft we don't authorize to be in the area? Even with our weakened military, these things could be done. And think of the message we would send to the murderers in Khartoum.
The cynics will note that if Sudan had lots of oil, that would be a different matter. The Christian view is that it does not matter. The strong must always protect the weak when they are able. We should take dramatic action to stop the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof brings this home:
Passing the Darfur Accountability Act would be a good start.
| technorati tag | Christianity|
Very few mainstream media heavies seem to have noticed that an Arab government is pursuing a course of genocide. One of the exceptions is Nicholas Kristof of the Times, who could be called the conscience of the MSM on the matter of Darfur. Today, he once again reminds us that it is not sufficient to simply call what is happening genocide. It is necessary to take action.
Now, Kristof is a classic liberal, multilateralist, and the entities that the Darfur Accountability Act calls upon to do something do not have a good track record. To say the least. These are the worse-than-useless United Nations Security Council, and the Grand Collective of Thugs and Muggers, a/k/a the African Union. So, one might argue that it's better to do nothing than something that is bound to fail. On the other hand, it's possible that if the United States and its European allies banded together to actually enforce UN Security Council resolutions, who knows, some innocent lives just might be saved.
This is what we did in Iraq, if memory serves. While most of the rest of the world yelled and screamed about big bad unilateral United States, we actually got rid of one of the most heinous regimes on the face of the earth. Should we, could we, do the same thing in Sudan? Doubtful. Thanks to the efforts of Bush 41 and Clinton, our military has been shredded, and can barely subdue some ragtag insurgents in Iraq. But how much military force might it take to get the Sudan Arabs to stop supporting genocide? Perhaps some bombs delivered to the right addresses? Perhaps enforcing, with brutal efficiency, a no-fly zone and shooting down all aircraft we don't authorize to be in the area? Even with our weakened military, these things could be done. And think of the message we would send to the murderers in Khartoum.
The cynics will note that if Sudan had lots of oil, that would be a different matter. The Christian view is that it does not matter. The strong must always protect the weak when they are able. We should take dramatic action to stop the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof brings this home:
President Bush and other world leaders are honoring John Paul II in a way that completely misunderstands his message. We pay him no tribute if we lower our flags to half-staff and send a grand presidential delegation to his funeral, when at the same time we avert our eyes as villagers are slaughtered and mutilated in the genocide unfolding in Darfur.He is absolutely correct on this point. The Christian is obligated to protect the weak against evil when he can. We do the most honor to the memory of great men such as JPII not by pageantry but by actually doing something.
The message of the pope's ministry was about standing up to evil, not about holding grand funerals.
Passing the Darfur Accountability Act would be a good start.
| technorati tag | Christianity|
posted by John Luke at 1:52 PM
Welcome. My name is John Luke Rich, (very) struggling Christian. The focus here is Christianity in its many varieties,
its fussing and feuding, how it impacts our lives and our society, with detours to consider it with other faiths (or lack thereof).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home