From Seattle writer and consultant Matt Rosenberg...

« Tupac's Smack | Main | Cosby Speech in Chicago Bollixes Hed Writers »

Who Will Turn the Screws on Khartoum?

July 01, 2004

Government of Sudan-backed Arab Muslim militiamen are systematically raping thousands of Sudanese black Muslim women they've driven from their homes, all the while denigrating their blackness.

Widespread, racially- and politically-motivated gang rapes are just one part of the ongoing tragedy in Sudan. As many as 30,000 black Muslims have been killed in recent months in Sudan's western Darfur region by Arab Muslim janjaweed militias. Another 1.2 million are homeless after brutal janjaweed raids and in dire need of relief and medicine.

They need security most of all, so they can return home, as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell noted yesterday in a visit to Darfur.

But Powell's hope that the U.N. can help bring Sudan's murderous government into line is misplaced. Consider the U.N.'s past record, as outlined by Joe Mariani today at ChronWatch.

Sudan and Iraq both illustrate the need for a strong U.S. role in keeping the world safe for democracy, argues the National Business Review of New Zealand, in an editorial from tomorrow's edition.

It is a strange but true phenomenon that the commentariat --­ that powerful worldwide body that professes to know more about running the world than elected politicians --­ urges state intervention in a wide range of affairs, particularly business and tackling issues such as poverty, disease and global warming, But curiously they draw the line in foreign affairs.

Nowhere is this more blatantly the case than in the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emption against terrorism. The overthrow and capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq has boosted the commentariat's claims to greater wisdom. Every headline has become, it hopes, another nail in the coffin of George W Bush's re-election chances.

..The American invasion of Iraq (underscores) the consequences of inaction. The examples of Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan are just some that highlight the need for an effective world policeman committed to the prevention of ethnic cleansing and mass human tragedies.

For a variety of reasons, the UN is unable to fulfil this role. Intervention in the Sudan is prevented because of opposition from two Muslim members of the Security Council, Pakistan and Algeria. Only the US, for all its faults, is capable of keeping the world safe for democracy.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 1, 2004 11:04 AM


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/402

Comments:

"I agree with the decision not to send American troops to Rwanda."--George W Bush

Posted by: John Doe at July 1, 2004 04:17 PM

I frankly don't understand the nature of the conflict or whether a military response would change the facts on the ground. This is an Arab Muslim on Black Muslim conflict right? Are we planning to garrison the country and keep the warring sections apart? What would we do next, supply funds for the care of the Black Muslims and set up refugee camps?

I'm hard pressed to define a US security interest in this conflict and that make's it very diffcult to ask our wonderful military to take on this thankless task. These are self-inflicted conflicts of broken socieities and we can only selectively intervene in but a few.

We have already spilled much blood and treasure in Iraq and we have our hands full with the battle against terrorists around the world that doesn't make the headlines.

It's a hard hearted position but I am open to other suggestions besides do something.

Posted by: Gary B at July 1, 2004 04:43 PM

The "nature of the conflict" is simple. Arabs from north are attempting to murder blacks (regardless of Muslim, Christian or animist) and take their land.

I think Matt's point (please correct me if I am wrong) -- which I happen to share -- is that UN is too powerless, too corrupt and too complicit to do anything about the great tragedy unfolding there OR anywhere else for that matter. I do not think he is advocating that we send US forces there.

Posted by: James J. Na at July 1, 2004 08:04 PM

Measure One: precision drones over Khartoum, ready to splatter Government of Sudan top honchos into the atmo - if necessary improvements in Darfur aren't forthcoming muy pronto. Considering the genocide that G.O.S. Arab Muslim leaders are presiding over, this is hardly extreme!

Posted by: Matt Rosenberg at July 1, 2004 09:16 PM

The Ugandan orphanages we work with, supporting thousands of kids - from Sudan, Congo, Chad, Rwanda and Burundi 'mainstreamed' among the Ugandans (these orphanages do so without prejudice regarding nationality, sex, religion or health condition or we don't work with them - but it is amazing to see that they did so long before we found them) - have been pushed to the breaking point by the pure human toll of migratory floods caused by Khartoum henchman and their ilk. Africa needs a "NATO" type multi-national force-projection capability. Funded by the U.S. - armored and airlifted by the U.S. In other words, they don't move unless we mandate the mission. Professionally trained and equipped soldiers - paying them at one quarter the rate of our troops would make them among the highest paid executives on that continent - with educational, public service, construction and infrastructure development tasks keeping them very busy on crucial "hearts and minds" concerns when not training or deployed on missions. It is long since time when we helped Africa help itself in this way. Participating nations must meet Millenium Challenge Account thresholds in financial transparency; and stand to human rights audit. The UN should leave Africa - they have all but declared moral bankruptcy anyway. I can say nothing good about the UN - it is just so sad to see hopes and aspirations for good bound over to them and their uncaring agenda-ist predilictions. The UN is in a fall from grace - even among the most pollyannish of us 'Left' and so it is well past time we proceed from a more realistic vantage point than that of the Harem on the East River.

Posted by: P Scott Cummins at July 1, 2004 10:55 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that most blacks in Sudan were forced into converting to islam, and yet are still treated as dhimmis because they are not considered real muslims (Arab muslim). By forced I am referring to literal as well as converting out of fear or to appease their attackers.
I echo the comment about the UN being useless in this fight for the innocent in Sudan. You see that in other African countries, the UN "peacekeepers" have created and encouraged the sex trade of children. They were also useless in the case of Rwanda. The NATO idea seems to be the best answer at this point. However, France and Germany are NATO member and as we have seem, would most likely not vote to free people who are tortured, raped and slaughtered in mass by blood thirsty arab muslims.

Posted by: Naarski at July 3, 2004 04:51 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?