Back in 2005, I posted a column from the Washington Post on the UN determining that no genocide was occurring in Sudan.
You may search out the full article by clicking on the SUDAN label and selecting the article.
President Bush, through his Secretary of State Colin Powell, told the world in no uncertain terms that genocide was occurring in Sudan.
The response - oddly, the left said nothing, except perhaps - he should have said something sooner. The left did not cheer the fact SOMEONE had FINALLY called it genocide. No one else in the world, of any importance or authority had called it what it was. Odd isn't it.
Sidebar:
The ODDITY is less odd than it is incredulous.The fact the left hates Bush interferes with their ability to recognize the most vocal opponent on earth of the Sudanese genocide. I do not count Greenpeace or Yellowpeace or Amnesty or Doctors without Borders, for all of them together do not have the authority and position that the President of the United States possesses. Yet, all the clamoring for a leader to speak out, one does, and the left ignores the position. Intellectual honesty necessitates my saying that fact alone discredits the left.
- Good part is still coming
End of Sidebar:
So a world leader calls it genocide and the world yawns. Sort of. By calling what was occurring in the Sudan, a genocide, the US forced the UN to do 'something'. That 'something' was to commission an inquiry to look into the claims. The response? Well, the whole world was calling it genocide. The US called it genocide. Every actor and actress called it genocide. Every human rights group called it genocide. Students, teachers, mothers, fathers - the world recognized genocide.
What did the UN do (remember, this is the entity some political leaders in the US believe we should put more faith in, and turn over nearly a trillion dollars to, so they can solve poverty) ?
The commission put out the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General (PDF), United Nations, 25 January 2005, and it states: "The various tribes that have been the object of attacks and killings (chiefly the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa tribes) do not appear to make up ethnic groups distinct from the ethnic group to which persons or militias that attack them belong. They speak the same language (Arabic) and embrace the same religion(Islam)" (p. 129).
So it is not genocide.
That makes me feel a lot better. Whew. I was worried for a moment that it might be genocide. That there might be a repeat of Rwanda or Uganda or Somalia or ... (insert almost any African country). I feel so much better that the respected, esteemed, much vaunted institution of the United Nations reached a conclusion.
Except .... not quite.
- Good part is still coming
Why didn't they (UN) find genocide?
To find genocide one must define the groups. In Rwanda - Hutu, Tutsi. One group versus another group. Genocide.
So - in Sudan who is it and what is it?
The UN and NY Times and other less controversial sources will claim it is to do with land (and within the issue of land is oil and water). Everything is water and oil. At first glance that might make sense and apparently if you are the NY Times, you only look for the simple and easy answer - like water, else you might be forced to confront inherent contradictions in your ideological outlook on the world.
What if we asked someone who lives in Sudan (Southern region) and has an orphanage and has lived in Sudan since the 1990s and before that, had made excursions into Sudan for months at a time. What about people who have escaped - what do these voices say.
The majority of those voices, and many other individuals with intimate knowledge of the events - the NORTH, a MUSLIM government, using an Arab / Muslim militia to terrorize, kidnap, torture, rape, murder those people in the South who happen to be Christian and or pagan. THAT is the MAJORITY of what is going on in the Sudan.
Are there Arabs who are killed by the Arab militia. Yes, just as there are women killed by women in car accidents. It is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue. We can be of the same tribe - and I am Christian and you are Muslim.
The UN report walks a fine line and plays semantics with words, especially how it defines groups and or people.
(The thing about the word games and semantics is - they do it on purpose. They know what they are doing and trying to avoid!)
Nice. Responsible.
NEVER AGAIN. - what a meaningless phrase.
- Good part is still coming
The UN is very good at dealing with countries who abide by norms - social, cultural, political standards. Countries that seek to be part of the brotherhood of man. Countries and governments that respect the basic structure of decency / humanity and compassion for others less fortunate. When it comes to countries and ideologies that do not regard human rights issues as relevant, do not adhere to basic human rights policies - the UN is pretty ineffective. Therefore, the UN expends vast amounts of energy criticizing the US, Israel, or the West more generally - and the reason is clear - the rest do not care, and or ... have no interest in listening. The UN does not wish to confront anyone unless they are willing to be confronted (The West). If the nation/state/regime in question is not interested in hearing what the UN has to say - the UN pretends to find something else to occupy itself and immediately files a resolution against Israel - the nation/state/regime simply continues doing whatever it was doing and tells the world it isn't doing it, will not let the UN check to see if it is doing it, the UN blows steam, throws out some 'recognizes', 'implores', 'demands', 'abhors', 'requests', 'urges' ... and the issue is lost in the cavernous files of the UN.
It is therefore no surprise what they concluded. There was no other option.
For the UN to recognize that it was Islam at war against Christians and others in Sudan would require the UN to do something and the UN would rather wage war against the US, than confront Islam.
- Good part is still coming
GOOD PART ---> ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
GOOD PART ---> Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, 6 July 2000
Also from the June 30, 2000 meeting in New York.
The GOOD PART is also the part that judges and CONDEMNS the UN and all those esteemed individuals / countries, some politicians wish to sign treaties/and oblige the US to serve ---
A person ['PERSON' IN THIS SENTENCE WOULD BE STATE/NATION or ENTITY, not necessarily a person as in an individual] with knowledge of such a crime has a duty to alert authorities and continue telling others until appropriate action is taken. Additionally persons with such knowledge have a duty to assist victims, and warn other potential victims targeted by the perpetrators. In the case of "initial acts in an emerging pattern" of genocide, prompt action is essential to save threatened population groups from greater destruction.
Hmmm. Let's see. Admit publicly that it is genocide and YOU HAVE A DUTY TO TAKE ACTION IMMEDIATELY ... pass go, pass nap, pass meetings on the subject - go directly to ACT. Any nation or group who call it genocide, MUST take action. Failure to take action would be a violation of international law.
It was not an option whether or not a country acts against genocidaires. It is incumbent upon all nations who recognize genocide to ACT - not to debate, urge, condemn, but to STOP it using WHATEVER FORCE IS NECESSARY.
Therefore, if the UN does not wish to act, it most certainly would not call it nor find an event to be genocide! If I did not wish to get involved, I would call it anything but genocide. For example, I could call it: Big Death, or something like Massive Humanitarian Crisis, maybe even - Bad Stuff Happens ... you could call it anything you'd like, just as long as you avoid the WORD genocide.
The evidence presented, court assembled, judged, and found guilty.
Why on bloody earth would any reasonably bright person wish to place the US in any position, but superior to the UN. And why would anyone vote for anyone who calls for the US to obligate itself to an entity that is complicit in the murder of millions of innocent people worldwide, and an accessory to the murder of millions more. They have more blood on their hands than Hitler's Nazi regime.
They have damned themselves.
UN
GENOCIDE
SUDAN
Posts
