Reality-BasedTM Political Numbers from Nicholas Beaudrot
Electoral Math
Reality-BasedTM Political Numbers from Nicholas Beaudrot
| Home | Ned Lamont and Chris Murphy
I tried to cut The New Republic some slack, perhaps for longer than was healthy. The time for such behavior has passed.
Here's Martin Peretz decrying the weakness of the United Nations in the face of genocide in Sudan. Because of the structure of the U.N. Security Council, it's difficult to advance any real peacekeeping force in the region. China is a permanent member of the Security Council, and would veto strong action against the Sudanese government. They have a substantial stake in Sudan's oil reserves, and always try to vote against interference in a sovereign state's "internal" affairs for fear that the U.N. may one day interfere in their own [say, by taking real action against China's persecution of dissidents]. Peretz is understandably frustrated at the U.N.'s lack of urgency. I have no problem with any of that.
What I do have a problem with is this [emphasis mine]:
One might think that Afro-American organizations in the States and African-American politicians might raise their voices against this infamy. But no. You see, George Bush has actually done this. And he certainly can't be in the right. I wish he would go further and, as our editorial in this week's TNR hard copy edition urges, with the U.K., Canada, France, Germany, Australia and, yes, Israel, deploy the troops necessary to save the lives of those whose lives have not yet been taken or simply destroyed.
This is just too rich.
First off, what priority does the Sudanese crisis really have with the Bush executive? Right, they farm it out almost all public statements on the subject to the U.N. Ambassador, who has no power inside the White House. Just checking.
Second, and more importantly, it appears that Mr. Peretz can't be bothered to read any of Barack Obama's news clippings, where he'd read about Obama's trip to Chad to meet with Darfuri refugees, and where he was denied an entry visa to the Sudan for criticizing the government. Nor does he bother to pick up The Washington Post, where he would have read the headline "7 House Members Arrested in at Sudanese Embassy", which feature the very public protests of several African-American politicians, including the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Nor can he find the NAACP's International Affairs priorities. Maybe he missed the first 2004 Presidential Debate, where Kerry outbid Bush's support for Sudanese refugees, pledging to give logistical support to the African Union [search for "Sudan"] while Bsh recounted his minor commitments. Or perhaps he just thinks that the U.S. Army, which has many members who've spent two and three tours in Iraq having difficulty in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency operations, is rarin' to head out to the Sudan for more peacekeeping and counterinsurgency operations.
Words fail me.
The "right answer" here, as much as there is one, is for Europe to step up to the plate and provide a peacekeeping force and/or logistical & training support to the African Union. At some point in the future, the EU will want to engage in military operations that the U.S. won't, or at a time when the U.S. Army is already stretched thin [such as today]. Why not get some practice at it now, and stop genocide as an added bonus? The proper response is not for Europeans to whine about American inaction; it's to get over their fears of repeating the mistakes of colonialism, and do what's morally responsible by committing military aid to protect Darfur.
Who is the only national politician who's figured this out? Howard Dean.
| | technorati
Last
updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 08:47 02 September 2006
