![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
~
One of the most powerful scenes comes when the U.N. commander admits to the hotel manager, Paul Rusesabagina, that the West is allowing the genocide to run its course. "We think you're dirt, Paul," he says brokenly, adding: "You're an African. ... They're not going to stop the slaughter."
-- Nicholas D. Kristof for The NY Times
That line is actually from a movie, but the movie isn't mere fiction. It appears to be another Schindler's List, coming out of the latest genocide in Africa.
Even when it comes to the modest proposals that Mr. Kristof suggests, given how bogged down America is in Iraq, one still think this is more of a chance for the so-called United States of Europe to show its stuff. Surely, they can manage no-fly zones on their own. But meanwhile...
___ ___ ___
The new movie "Hotel Rwanda" is a gut-wrenching true story of a hotel manager who sheltered 1,268 people in his hotel during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, bribing, begging and bullying the killers who came to hack people apart with machetes.
One of the most powerful scenes comes when the U.N. commander admits to the hotel manager, Paul Rusesabagina, that the West is allowing the genocide to run its course. "We think you're dirt, Paul," he says brokenly, adding: "You're an African. ... They're not going to stop the slaughter."
Against that backdrop of local butchery and Western indifference, the hotel manager summons the courage to stare down the killers, even as they hold guns to his head. The film is painful to watch not only for the slaughter it depicts, but also because it forces us, as viewers, to wonder what we would do in such a situation.
But we don't have to wonder. We know, for a genocide is unfolding again, in Darfur. And rather than standing up to the killers, we're again acquiescing.
The Darfur situation, after a few months of looking a bit more hopeful, is deteriorating sharply. The rebels have grown more intransigent, and security on the ground is getting worse. Save the Children has now had four aid workers killed in Darfur, and aid groups are pulling back.
"The present situation in Darfur is therefore that of a time bomb, which could explode at any moment," Maj. Gen. Festus Okonkwo, the commander of an African Union force, said at a press conference yesterday. He said an "astronomical" amount of weaponry had been brought into Darfur, and suggested that the fighting was now poised to get much worse.
Early in his presidency, Mr. Bush read a report about Bill Clinton's paralysis during the Rwandan genocide and scrawled in the margin, "Not on my watch."
But in fact the same thing is happening on his watch, and I find that heartbreaking and baffling. Mr. Bush's core constituency, the religious right, has been pushing him to be more active on Sudan, and some of the first people to jump up and down about Darfur were in Mr. Bush's own Agency for International Development.
Mr. Bush did take modest action (much more than most Europeans), and even these baby steps halted the worst of the killing, saving tens of thousands of lives. So, in effect, Mr. Bush had the ball in his hands - and then fumbled it.
What should the president do?
Mr. Bush should travel to Sudan, as Tony Blair did. He should forcefully denounce the brutality - and also the misconduct of the rebels. He should convene a summit meeting to organize a larger international force for Darfur. He should push ahead with a U.N. resolution, even at the risk of a veto from China. And he should threaten targeted economic sanctions against Sudan's leaders unless attacks stop immediately.
Finally, Mr. Bush should bar the Sudan government from using its aircraft to terrorize civilians. Imposing such a no-fly zone wouldn't have to involve constant surveillance flights. As an American general, Charles Wald, whose command includes Africa, told me, "It would be easier to tell the Sudanese that if they do use aircraft for civilian attacks, bad things will happen to their planes on the ground." After Sudan lost its first plane, it might stop strafing civilians.
What can ordinary Americans do? They can call the White House or their members of Congress to demand action, and they can reach into their pockets. Jack Weisberg, a New Yorker with no previous interest in such causes, asked me for the name of an organization doing good work in Darfur. I mentioned Doctors Without Borders. Saying he was suffering an "attack of conscience," he then wrote the group a check for $500,000.
"Look, I love money," Mr. Weisberg said. "But it's time to share what I've made. ... Our money is life to them."
A lot of lives, in the case of his donation, although even a $20 contribution goes a long way in Sudan. But above all we need Mr. Bush to show some moral leadership - and, yes, some of his "moral values."
Mr. Bush bemoaned Mr. Clinton's use of the White House for sex with an intern, and he was right to do so. But it's incomparably more immoral, and certainly a greater betrayal of American values, for Mr. Bush to sit placidly in the White House and watch a genocide from the sidelines.
-- Nicholas D. Kristof, "Facing Down the Killers"
.
One of the most powerful scenes comes when the U.N. commander admits to the hotel manager, Paul Rusesabagina, that the West is allowing the genocide to run its course. "We think you're dirt, Paul," he says brokenly, adding: "You're an African. ... They're not going to stop the slaughter."
-- Nicholas D. Kristof for The NY Times
That line is actually from a movie, but the movie isn't mere fiction. It appears to be another Schindler's List, coming out of the latest genocide in Africa.
Even when it comes to the modest proposals that Mr. Kristof suggests, given how bogged down America is in Iraq, one still think this is more of a chance for the so-called United States of Europe to show its stuff. Surely, they can manage no-fly zones on their own. But meanwhile...
___ ___ ___
The new movie "Hotel Rwanda" is a gut-wrenching true story of a hotel manager who sheltered 1,268 people in his hotel during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, bribing, begging and bullying the killers who came to hack people apart with machetes.
One of the most powerful scenes comes when the U.N. commander admits to the hotel manager, Paul Rusesabagina, that the West is allowing the genocide to run its course. "We think you're dirt, Paul," he says brokenly, adding: "You're an African. ... They're not going to stop the slaughter."
Against that backdrop of local butchery and Western indifference, the hotel manager summons the courage to stare down the killers, even as they hold guns to his head. The film is painful to watch not only for the slaughter it depicts, but also because it forces us, as viewers, to wonder what we would do in such a situation.
But we don't have to wonder. We know, for a genocide is unfolding again, in Darfur. And rather than standing up to the killers, we're again acquiescing.
The Darfur situation, after a few months of looking a bit more hopeful, is deteriorating sharply. The rebels have grown more intransigent, and security on the ground is getting worse. Save the Children has now had four aid workers killed in Darfur, and aid groups are pulling back.
"The present situation in Darfur is therefore that of a time bomb, which could explode at any moment," Maj. Gen. Festus Okonkwo, the commander of an African Union force, said at a press conference yesterday. He said an "astronomical" amount of weaponry had been brought into Darfur, and suggested that the fighting was now poised to get much worse.
Early in his presidency, Mr. Bush read a report about Bill Clinton's paralysis during the Rwandan genocide and scrawled in the margin, "Not on my watch."
But in fact the same thing is happening on his watch, and I find that heartbreaking and baffling. Mr. Bush's core constituency, the religious right, has been pushing him to be more active on Sudan, and some of the first people to jump up and down about Darfur were in Mr. Bush's own Agency for International Development.
Mr. Bush did take modest action (much more than most Europeans), and even these baby steps halted the worst of the killing, saving tens of thousands of lives. So, in effect, Mr. Bush had the ball in his hands - and then fumbled it.
What should the president do?
Mr. Bush should travel to Sudan, as Tony Blair did. He should forcefully denounce the brutality - and also the misconduct of the rebels. He should convene a summit meeting to organize a larger international force for Darfur. He should push ahead with a U.N. resolution, even at the risk of a veto from China. And he should threaten targeted economic sanctions against Sudan's leaders unless attacks stop immediately.
Finally, Mr. Bush should bar the Sudan government from using its aircraft to terrorize civilians. Imposing such a no-fly zone wouldn't have to involve constant surveillance flights. As an American general, Charles Wald, whose command includes Africa, told me, "It would be easier to tell the Sudanese that if they do use aircraft for civilian attacks, bad things will happen to their planes on the ground." After Sudan lost its first plane, it might stop strafing civilians.
What can ordinary Americans do? They can call the White House or their members of Congress to demand action, and they can reach into their pockets. Jack Weisberg, a New Yorker with no previous interest in such causes, asked me for the name of an organization doing good work in Darfur. I mentioned Doctors Without Borders. Saying he was suffering an "attack of conscience," he then wrote the group a check for $500,000.
"Look, I love money," Mr. Weisberg said. "But it's time to share what I've made. ... Our money is life to them."
A lot of lives, in the case of his donation, although even a $20 contribution goes a long way in Sudan. But above all we need Mr. Bush to show some moral leadership - and, yes, some of his "moral values."
Mr. Bush bemoaned Mr. Clinton's use of the White House for sex with an intern, and he was right to do so. But it's incomparably more immoral, and certainly a greater betrayal of American values, for Mr. Bush to sit placidly in the White House and watch a genocide from the sidelines.
-- Nicholas D. Kristof, "Facing Down the Killers"
.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-18 09:33 pm (UTC)From:They want a common defence policy, but could never have one that wasn't violently at odds with one part or another of this disparate body. They don't have any forces (barely) to commit to anything, so what is the use of a defence policy?
All they have is the ability to posture backed up by the threat of posturing. Lack of involvement in real world conflicts has allowed most of their governments to lose all contact with the realities they involve.
Unless they adopt a common language (a considerable project requiring decades) there can never be any cross border political debate on an EU wide level. Thus such bogus pseudo parliamentary structures as they have cannot become effective bodies; too much power to make laws binding on the member states is vested in unelected, or nominated by national government, officials.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people of Europe are dissatisfied with the whole thing, though in varying degrees and in varying ways.
The whole thing should be replaced with a free trade area, and instead of trying to escape their inferiority complex re the USA, they should try gratitude in respect of things past, and try looking at how the USA got right what it has got right (though I don't consider that to be everything).
It is bad enough for most British people - I don't know how you put up with the EU at all. Never expect anything good to come out of the EU, except world class whingeing.
--- An Englishman
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 03:33 am (UTC)From:I was good-naturedly trying to provoke Antilapsarian, whose attitudes are reflected in this post. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/antilapsarian/33023.html) He tends to see America as the ancient Roman Empire in its last days of decay and corruption, while looking to Europe, as led by France LMFAO, to take over world leadership with its enlightened post-modernist ways. There are just no shortage of views on the Internet!
Until Europe progresses much further with This Eurocorps, I don't think they can hope to take effective leadership of world affairs. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/hardblue/77481.html) But things are evolving and all remains to be seen. If not in our lifetime, maybe something rather interesting will be happening along these lines later, much later.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 09:04 pm (UTC)From:I know many in Britain oppose fuller integration into the EU, but one hopes that the EU can continue to evolve and pull Britain in to achieve full impact. A developed EU military to back up the internationalist perspective would be nice. But as time goes by we'll see what happens. Unlike the US that wrongly thinks it is the main front for terrorism, etc., Europe is the real battleground for (militant Islam and otherwise) at least in terms of overall impact. The US is too much of a "lost cause" while Europe's culture remains a place where there is progress possible. Though that could change. Some of Europe still very much has a xenophobic streak and America has a progressive streak with breath left. Both places are very much in a tug of war that could go either way.
I tend to think of the two sides, Europe has a better chance right now of turning into something better. Though America could benefit from massive education reform and make it a horserace again.