Give.Me.A.Break
Our consciences simply will not let us rest. Well, given the situation in Darfur, nor should we rest. Don't we have an obligation as individuals, nations, representative world bodies to abhor and protest the situation in Darfur?
And once we protest and express our abhorrence for a government of a country like Sudan to authorize and take a hand in brutalizing, murdering, raping and making refugees of millions of its citizens, should be be satisfied with our rapt attention to the matter?
Or should we be using every means at our disposal to rectify the situation, insist meaningfully that it be mediated and halted, that restitution take place. For this we have the world body that represents all nations, the United Nations.
Which is why so many other nations, mostly those of the West, gather in despair and unbelief, that the world body is so hesitant to do that which it is mandated to perform; to serve and to protect.
Our hands are tied. We do nothing. Oh yes, we wring our hands, metaphorically, hoping for a cessation to the nightmare of death and destruction. Don't we always?
It'll be different this time; the world has acknowledged, as has the United Nations, that we have a collective duty to intervene, to halt the massacre of people, even if it means invading a sovereign country's territory. Or we agree to that in theory, in paper.
But in practise? Not on your life. It's too, well, unsettling.
So instead we call for international conferences to discuss ad infinitum, the Darfur crisis. We hear motherhood statements that decry the "genocide", but we cannot term it thus; rather it must be named a "humanitarian crisis" lest the Khartoum government be offended. In the precincts of the United Nations this is verboten; one does not embarrass a member-state.
The world cannot "continue to sit by" while thousands more are killed and millions displaced, intones the U.S. Secretary of State. And all nod sagely.
And once we protest and express our abhorrence for a government of a country like Sudan to authorize and take a hand in brutalizing, murdering, raping and making refugees of millions of its citizens, should be be satisfied with our rapt attention to the matter?
Or should we be using every means at our disposal to rectify the situation, insist meaningfully that it be mediated and halted, that restitution take place. For this we have the world body that represents all nations, the United Nations.
Which is why so many other nations, mostly those of the West, gather in despair and unbelief, that the world body is so hesitant to do that which it is mandated to perform; to serve and to protect.
Our hands are tied. We do nothing. Oh yes, we wring our hands, metaphorically, hoping for a cessation to the nightmare of death and destruction. Don't we always?
It'll be different this time; the world has acknowledged, as has the United Nations, that we have a collective duty to intervene, to halt the massacre of people, even if it means invading a sovereign country's territory. Or we agree to that in theory, in paper.
But in practise? Not on your life. It's too, well, unsettling.
So instead we call for international conferences to discuss ad infinitum, the Darfur crisis. We hear motherhood statements that decry the "genocide", but we cannot term it thus; rather it must be named a "humanitarian crisis" lest the Khartoum government be offended. In the precincts of the United Nations this is verboten; one does not embarrass a member-state.
The world cannot "continue to sit by" while thousands more are killed and millions displaced, intones the U.S. Secretary of State. And all nod sagely.
Labels: Crisis Politics, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 6:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home