"I promise this to the people of Darfur: the United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world."--President George W. BushThe genocide in Darfur is one of those issues that I care deeply about. I did a comprehensive post on it a year ago where I highlight what was going on and what could be done to stop it. As I pointed out a year ago, I was skeptical that the UN would make any real steps to actually solve the problem. They have done nothing but pass resolutions which isn't effective in curbing the violence and President Bush has had enough.
Steve Paterno, a Sudanese man living in the US, points out how Bush has cared about this issue and has done much more than past administrations to change things in the Sudan and of course, has gotten little credit for it. Here is some of what he had to say:
When it comes to Sudan, President Bush knows it too well that he dedicated most of his efforts and time to issues affecting Sudan. There are even rumors that he has been nicknamed within the White House circles as "Sudan Desk Officer." It has been alleged that President Bush does not only passionately taken into heart the problems affecting Sudan but also developed some level of expertise on Sudan in the course of his tenure as president of the U.S.Now Bush is taking things a step further and issuing tough economic sanctions. He spoke on this last Tuesday. Here is some of what he had to say:
For too long, the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder, and rape of innocent civilians. My administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide. The world has a responsibility to help put an end to it.
Last month I announced that the United States was prepared to take new steps if the government of Sudan did not allow the full deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force; if the government did not begin living up to its many commitments, that the United States would act. I made clear that the time for promises was over, and that President Bashir had to do something to end the suffering.
The result is that the dire security situation on the ground in Darfur has not changed. And so today, at my instruction, the United States has taken the steps I announced in April. First, the Department of Treasury is tightening U.S. economic sanctions on Sudan. With this new effort, the United States will more aggressively enforce existing sanctions against Sudan's government.
I'm glad Bush is taking some action, but where have sanctions worked? They didn't work in Iraq. They haven't worked in North Korea, and it doesn't seem like they are working in Iran.
ReplyDeleteAfter enduring years of what the U.S. Secretary of State called genocide, the Fur deserve better than ineffective sanctions.
ReplyDeleteMichael Ledeen pointed out at the Corner (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTE0MDVhZjMwODgzYTExMTliNjUzYmM5ZGMyOTA2MjU=) that:
"Darfur is a catastrophe that could and should be solved in an hour or so. The killers largely operate from helicopters and small fixed wing aircraft. We could destroy them all in an hour or so. But that would be "wrong," because it would violate the current hymnal.
Go tell the victims. Explain why sanctions are better, because it makes the Western politicians feel pious. Even though black Africans are being slaughtered.
And while you're at it, tell the starving people of Zimbabwe why their killer and oppressor, Robert Mugabe, is left untouched by the entire outside world. Explain why St Nelson Mandela doesn't give a damn, while you're at it.
The Middle East is tough. These African horrors are relatively easy to fix. But nobody does a damn thing except talk about sanctions...and then largely fail to enact and/or enforce them.
When did Western leaders become vulgar Marxists? These evils do not have economic causes and are unlikely to be defeated by economic means (remember the Iraqi sanctions?). They have political causes and can be defeated by superior fire power."
Open borders. Amnesty. Sanctions. Appeasement.
When did the Bush Administration get taken over by moderate Democrats?