I read today that the death toll in Sudan's Darfur Genocide has passed 30,000, with 1.4 million people driven from the homes by the Jangaweed militia. A new UN Report indicates that Sudan has done little, if anything, to stop the bloodshed.
In turn, it appears that the UN Security Council is going to do little, if anything, to assist the people of Darfur. So far in this 17 month crisis, our government has done little but to deplore the massacres. The latest statement I could find from the White House suggests that Darfur is simply someone else's problem:
"The President commends the African Union's deployment of cease-fire monitors and a protection force to Darfur. We welcome the deployment of 155 Rwandan troops to El-Fasher, Darfur and the commitment to deploy approximately 150 Nigerian troops by August 30. We hope this will help improve security and create conditions in which humanitarian assistance can be more effectively provided to the Sudanese people.
As the United States has said before, the Government of Sudan must halt all Jinjaweed violence and hold accountable those responsible for human rights violations. All parties, including the Darfur rebels, must respect the cease-fire and allow the free movement of humanitarian workers and supplies."
BUT, we're not willing to back up our noble words with either military action, or with a blank check to nations that have the forces, but not the finances and/or transportation. I have not heard any big name conservative commentators or politicians of either party express discontent with this state of affairs or urge military intervention to stop the killings of civilians.
HOWEVER, this same crowd (Coulter, Limbaugh, Wall St. Journal, etc) branded anyone who opposed the IMMEDIATE invasion of Iraq during the debates of 2002 as a supporter of Saddam Hussein -- despite the fact there was no similar large scale murder IN PROGRESS. By this "logic" shall we call Bush, Kerry and the rest of the American political establishment supporters of the Jingaweed? If not, why not? Why should it be ok to punish decade-plus old crimes (Kurds, Iranians, Kuwaitis, etc) with military force and turn our backs on people dying in our midst?
Why should we ignore the UN when people WEREN'T dying by the tens of thousands, and scrupously follow every last jot of UN procedures when millions have been driven from their homes and hundreds of rapes take place each day? They may rape outdoors instead of in political prisons, but it sounds like many more are occuring in Sudan 2004 than in Iraq 2002 -- not that either country publishes reliable rape statistics.
Forgive me for being so angry about this, but I really want to know why the outrage poured out over Iraq war opponents isn't being served out to people in both parties who are content to say "Gee, that's too bad. We're sure the international community will do something meaningful one day..." while we watch the flames of genocide/mass murder consume so many of God's children.