Anyone catch this column last Tuesday? It haunts me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/op...ristof.html?hp

The UN quickly stepped in and determined it isn't genocide.

Must be a big comfort to the victims.

I keep thinking back to the presidential debates when W defended his decision to invade Iraq because Saddam, the epitome of evil, routinely tortured people - including children - and employed the systematic use of rape to intimidate. W pointed out over and over the thousands that perished under Saddam and argued that tyranny of that magnitude undermined democracy itself. W argued over and over that we, as the most powerful country in the world, had a moral obligation to act on behalf of those poor, downtrodden Iraqi people.

In Sudan, little boys are having appendages sliced off, girls and women are raped as they attempt to gather wood, and men are simpy murdered. What the **** will it take for the U.S. to intervene? W's lack of response is outrageous. He'll leave the ranch to intervene on behalf of Terry Shiavo but refuses to address the suffering of thousands in Darfur. He needs to pull his head out of his Christian ass and act. NOW.

Actually, Sudan has been a priority for several years. It was Bush who called the situation in Darfur genocide and sought to get the UN to act. The Chinese have prevented forceful action and firm sanctions with the threat of using their veto in the Security Council. There's also opposition from several Muslim countries.

The African Union last year threatened (unilaterally) to expand its mission in the region from protecting observers to actively protecting the victims. They're looking at expanding the number of troops they have there. I believe NATO is supplying logistical support. (Not sure about that one, but I'd advocate it)

You might also want to read about the work done by churches based in Bush's old home town of Midland to bring about negotiations to end the civil war between the mostly Arab north and the mostly black Christian and animist south. (This is separate from the conflict in Darfur.) The Midlanders were among the advocates who managed to pass the Sudan Peace Act a couple years ago. In January of this year the sides signed a peace agreement.

From the Onion, on this topic:

Well, I Guess That Genocide In Sudan Must've Worked Itself Out On Its Own

Bush spoke about Darfur at a recent photo op. The time before that? 141 days ago. Doesn't sound like a huge priority.

I know that the situation is complex; I'm not suggesting that the U.S. alone could stop the genocide. But why remain silent on the issue? Bush could, at the very least, speak out against the atrocities and he chooses not to. I find his silence immoral. Especially when he repeatedly takes the moral high ground when defending his decision to invade Iraq.

I don't know to what extent the administration is downplaying the U.S. role in order to keep the African Union at the center off attention. I think the A.U. is looking at expanding its numbers in the area, but I don't know the current status of that. If the A.U. gets the credit, what do I care?

Clue me in. What is it the U.S. isn't doing that you want done? Airstrikes? Boots on the ground?

The U.S. needs to pledge maximum financial support to A.U.
Exactly.
More humanitarian aid. More pressure on African nations to provide troops. Increased sanctions on Sudanese govt including a ban on oil export. AT the very least, how about partnering with France to enforce the flight restrictions approved by the UNSC Resolution.

If the crisis is a priority, why hasn't Bush sent Condi over? Darfur has been described as Hell on earth but is scarcely mentioned by the White House.

Touch oil and it's game over. The Chinese will veto anything like that. (As was the case with Iraq, a dictator can buy "no" votes in the UNSC with oil deals.) France didn't seem terribly interested in tougher sanctions either, though I don't know all the background behind that.

If there's already French air power in place, I wouldn't oppose having the U.S. join the effort. My concerns would be to go in with the support of the other involved countries and to make sure there is an ICC waiver for anything that happens with American troops.

(I suppose I have some concern about some bonehead ranting about the U.S. killing Muslims by going after Janjaweed. For some reason, the victims in cases like this don't seem to count.)

Yeah, it should be a higher priority for Rice and Co. Hard to dispute that.

Last thing I heard on the news was that Bush was withholding support from African nations that has governments he didn't approve of. More sanctions? The million dead Iraqi babies from the Iraq sanctions wasn't a wake up call?

George: "sure, I'd like to help the poor unfortunates in country X... but first I need them to restructure their evil government..."