Posted on 09/24/2004 9:02:18 PM PDT by neverdem
OP-ED COLUMNIST
And so we went the multilateral route.
Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.
And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.
Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.
We did everything basically right. The president was involved, the secretary of state was bold and clearheaded, the U.N. ambassador was eloquent, and the Congress was united. And, following the strictures of international law, we had the debate that, of course, is going to be the top priority while planes are bombing villages.
We had a discussion over whether the extermination of human beings in this instance is sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of genocide. For if it is, then the "competent organs of the United Nations" may be called in to take appropriate action, and you know how fearsome the competent organs may be when they may indeed be called.
The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.
For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.
But the multilateral process moved along in its dignified way. The U.N. general secretary was making preparations to set up a commission. Preliminary U.N. resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told they should stop - often in frosty tones. The world community - well skilled in the art of expressing disapproval, having expressed fusillades of disapproval over Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Iraq, etc. - expressed its disapproval.
And, meanwhile, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in Darfur.
There was even some talk of sending U.S. troops to stop the violence, which, of course, would have been a brutal act of oil-greedy unilateralist empire-building, and would have been protested by a million lovers of peace in the streets. Instead, the U.S. proposed a resolution threatening sanctions on Sudan, which began another round of communiqué-issuing.
The Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions would not be in the interests of humanity. The Chinese, whose oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto. And so began the great watering-down. Finally, a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to "consider" sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon.
The Security Council debate had all the decorous dullness you'd expect. The Algerian delegate had "profound concern." The Russian delegate pronounced the situation "complex." The Sudanese government was praised because the massacres are proceeding more slowly. The air was filled with nuanced obfuscations, technocratic jargon and the amoral blandness of multilateral deliberation.
The resolution passed, and it was a good day for alliance-nurturing and burden-sharing - for the burden of doing nothing was shared equally by all. And we are by now used to the pattern. Every time there is an ongoing atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages: (1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4) pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let this happen again.
The "never again" always comes. But still, we have all agreed, this sad cycle is better than having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go in "unilaterally" and do something. That would lack legitimacy! Strain alliances! Menace international law! Threaten the multilateral ideal!
It's a pity about the poor dead people in Darfur. Their numbers are still rising, at 6,000 to 10,000 a month.
Why didn't the UN do it soon as they knew what was going on in Sudan?
The UN does not care about lives. They care about money and power. They serve no good purpose.
Disgusting.
Thank goodness we have the all mighty UN to keep the peace. Now, we need them to band together and bring the same peace and stability to Iraq.
Signed,
John Kerry.
Because they are the UN, a den of thieves, murderers, and dictators.
The U.N. has sat on its hands for years. The U.N is so worried about pleasing everyone, it's not concerned about what the important issues are. These days, the only people that DON'T care about pleasing, is the United States. Thet are decisively anti-American.
In fact...come to think of it, when you put together U.N. and American...you get UN-American. That's precisely what the U.N. is.
Great piece. Thanks for posting it.
The UN has little or nothing to do with conscience these days. It basically is an organization with effects transfer payments, often to the unworthy, while taking a very substantial cut for itself. It typically sucks even as a debating society. Sad to say, at this juncture, it doesn't serve much of a useful purpose.
The UN is only concerned with "pleasing" the murderers and dictators of the world. It's not that they have sat on "their hands". It's that they can't oppose things like this because they would then be opposing themselves.
And, this is the organization that my Pope, John Paul II, wants to exhort to resolve crises.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush, who clearly told the panty-wearing UN assembly on Tuesday that genocide was occurring, is the devil himself in the eyes of the world, the Democrat Party, and the Roman Catholic Church, for daring to liberate 50 million human beings from tyranny.
Humanitarian organizations and religious denominations are worthless in the war on terror. Thank God that men of resolve will use violence to achieve victory over subhuman animals.
Summits, and meetings, and conferences, and negotiations are the refuge of cowardice.
The point of a gun is the only thing this refuse understands.
Brooks nails it. Makes you want to scream at all the nuanced sophisticates!
The usual UN movements -
Perhaps someone should ask Clinton how he was able to convince so many about Yugo. and attacking them - the PR firms did wonders (and that was with only 2,000 est. dead on both sides in one year - vs - over 1 million dead in another nation at the same time) -
But then, I realized that all was still right with the world, for it wasn't the vaunted NYT Editorial Board involved with this scintillating, insightful commentary -- rather, it was an invited op-ed columnist that Doesn't Necessarily Reflect The Views of The Paper.
Good, I can sleep well now. My expectations have not been raised!
He didn't.
No house or senate vote.
No UN.
No allies.
He just did it, and the liberal press spun it later.
Damn, neverdem; that is a beautiful piece of writing. Ironic, mordant, accurate to the point of painful; and sadly utterly true.
Somehow I cannot help but feel the tragedy upon which you expound would have been handled --- if handling is even the appropriate term -- had this nightmare unfolded in Scotland.
One most important fact missing from this op-ed is why the UN will do nothing. Sudan sits on the UN Human Rights Commission. Is it any wonder Bush got such a cool reception from the UN?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
He can be pretty good with ridicule and satire.
The Sudanese government was praised because the massacres are proceeding more slowly. The air was filled with nuanced obfuscations, technocratic jargon and the amoral blandness of multilateral deliberation.
They don't act..they might offend the Islamic brothers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.