Sunday, July 11, 2004
Not that I disagree with it, necessarily, of course. We, and the so-called 'international community', should be doing more in Sudan. It's just amazing that 'liberal' papers like the Globe are suddenly for all the things they've previously been against, as long as American interests are dubious and a Republican President isn't recommending it.
Inside Darfur, the same Janjaweed who razed the farming villages of refugees are now "guarding" concentration camps where those refugees are gathered. These camps have to be liberated. The people in them have to have food and medical care delivered to them. And then they have to be returned to their villages and protected while they revive their agricultural way of life.
There is no way to stop the Darfur genocide other than a humanitarian military intervention. In accord with the 1948 Convention on Genocide, the UN Security Council should pass such a resolution and invite a coalition of willing life savers to enter Darfur and rescue a million fellow human beings.
I'm all for that, although I wonder how many of the Globe Editors' kids are in the military and would be going into harm's way for this mission that clearly involves little threat to America, an imposed solution, long occupation, dubious exit strategy and conflict with Muslim Arabs (Something I'm sure the terrorists would just love.) - and all this against a "sovereign state," no less. And would the Globe still support such an intervention if say, France, were to block any resolutions? No need to answer. They would. Until George Bush backed it, of course.
Yes, it's good that the Globe is coming around. It would be nice if they were a tad more consistent.
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html
Understanding the left.
Bookmarking that one for later. :)