[lit-ideas] Darfur
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:47:21 -0700
On page 126 of New Glory, Peters writes, "As I write, a tragedy has been
unfolding in Sudan's Darfur province for many months. Governments wring
their hands. The UN politely discusses the situation. Delegations and
special representatives are dispatched. Celebrities whiz by. A bit of aid
is sent along to ease our consciences. And the slaughter continues.
"Of course, in Rwanda, Darfur, and other parts of Africa the dying is done
by blacks. And blather all it might about the equality of humankind, the
international community continues to undervalue the lives of the darker
skinned. Even the United States, which has made great moral progress, is
far more apt to send its troops to another Bosnia than to sub-Saharan
Africa. France does send its troops -- but only to kill natives in defense
of its dwindling empire in disguise. The West should have intervened
militarily in Darfur, but with the United States committed to Iraq the
continental European powers, as usual, took stock of their material
interests and found that none existed in western Sudan.
"The United Nations is united only in its indifference to injustice. When
the Untied States, along with other English-speaking states, fails to lead
the way the screams of anguished and dying go unanswered."
Comment: But if we weren't committed to Iraq and had troops available,
President Cassidy wouldn't want to send them because that would involve
violence. And if she weren't in office and someone else sent them, why of
course they are only going because they love war. "War, war, war," I can
hear her say. Or was that Mike. No I think it was Simon.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
