From the Wall Street Journal May 30th, 2007
"Bush ordered new U.S economic sanctions to pressure Sudan's government to stop bloodshed in Darfur that the administration has referred to as genocide. Sudan's government condemned the actions."
The discussion about the "genocide" in Darfur is a discussion that has not taken place in Washington, at least not seriously. The question is what should be done about Darfur? Especially in light of the U.N. and the world's non-response to the situation in Rwanda in 1994 where roughly 800,000 innocent civilians were killed. When the U.N. was first established, FDR said "Never again." He was speaking about the tragedy of the extermination and genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazi Regime. Is the world listening to those words? If so, how? If not, then why?
When considering military action, let’s reflect on Iraq quickly. They had no WMD's. There was no connection to 9/11, and Iraq never cooperated with Al-Qaeda. President Bush then relied on the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Well, if he is a bad man, what about the men in Darfur? Will the United States, and the world, sit idle and watch genocide take place again, roughly 13 years after Rwanda. Why do countries invade other countries? Is it only when their own self-interest is at stake? What about the sake of humanity? How can a President that says he values life, not do anything about Darfur?
Here is the bigger question. Does the U.N. have the will power and capability to stop atrocities like Darfur? When the U.N. was first proposed, the plan was to have a ready and standing army contributed by countries, so action could be taken around the world at a moments notice. Anyone that has watched NATO or U.N. military operations realizes how tricky and cumbersome they can be. Should the U.N. develop a standing and ready military force? Does the Security Council need to be rethought? Does the U.N. have what it needs to enforce its values, principles, aims and goals? If not, what should be done? More importantly in the 2004 Presidential debates, both Kerry and Bush stated genocide was taking place in Sudan. Will the world stand by, 13 years after Rwanda and about 60 years after WWII, and let the heinous acts of genocide take place once again? If we do, here is one more question. Does mankind ever learn from its mistakes?
"Bush ordered new U.S economic sanctions to pressure Sudan's government to stop bloodshed in Darfur that the administration has referred to as genocide. Sudan's government condemned the actions."
The discussion about the "genocide" in Darfur is a discussion that has not taken place in Washington, at least not seriously. The question is what should be done about Darfur? Especially in light of the U.N. and the world's non-response to the situation in Rwanda in 1994 where roughly 800,000 innocent civilians were killed. When the U.N. was first established, FDR said "Never again." He was speaking about the tragedy of the extermination and genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazi Regime. Is the world listening to those words? If so, how? If not, then why?
When considering military action, let’s reflect on Iraq quickly. They had no WMD's. There was no connection to 9/11, and Iraq never cooperated with Al-Qaeda. President Bush then relied on the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Well, if he is a bad man, what about the men in Darfur? Will the United States, and the world, sit idle and watch genocide take place again, roughly 13 years after Rwanda. Why do countries invade other countries? Is it only when their own self-interest is at stake? What about the sake of humanity? How can a President that says he values life, not do anything about Darfur?
Here is the bigger question. Does the U.N. have the will power and capability to stop atrocities like Darfur? When the U.N. was first proposed, the plan was to have a ready and standing army contributed by countries, so action could be taken around the world at a moments notice. Anyone that has watched NATO or U.N. military operations realizes how tricky and cumbersome they can be. Should the U.N. develop a standing and ready military force? Does the Security Council need to be rethought? Does the U.N. have what it needs to enforce its values, principles, aims and goals? If not, what should be done? More importantly in the 2004 Presidential debates, both Kerry and Bush stated genocide was taking place in Sudan. Will the world stand by, 13 years after Rwanda and about 60 years after WWII, and let the heinous acts of genocide take place once again? If we do, here is one more question. Does mankind ever learn from its mistakes?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home