Averting Eyes from Darfur’s Fate
Ok, I was reading the commentary in today’s Local Paper, and found an article from a guy in the middle of the Darfur Genocide, I liked it a lot, so I’m going to post it here on the site.
LABADO, Sudan-
Last Fall President Bush declared the slaughter here in Darfur to be genocide, and then looked away. One Reason for his paralysis is apparently the fear that Darfur may be another black hole of murder and mutilation, a hopeless quagmire to suck in well meaning Americans, another Somalia, or Iraq.
It’s not.
We’re again making the same mistake we’ve made in past genocides: As in the slaughter of Americans, Jews, Rwandans, Cambodians, and Bosnians, we see not perfect solutions, so we end up doing very little. Because we could not Change Nazi policies, we did not bother to bomb rail lines leading to death camps; today, because we have little leverage over Sudan, we do not impose a no fly zone to stop the strafing of civilians, or even bother to speak out forcefully.
Yet this town of Lambado underscores that Darfur is not hopeless, that even the very modest actions that the international community has taken so far has saved hundreds of lives.
A desert town that used to hold about 25,000 people, Labado was attacked in December by the Sudanese Military, and the Militia, known as the Janjaweed. Fir days, the army burned huts, looted shops, Killed men, and raped women.
For Months, Labado was completely deserted and appeared destined to become a ghost town. But then, African Union forces, soldiers from across Africa who have been dispatched to stop the slaughter, set up a small security outpost of 50 troops here. Almost immediately, refugees began returning to Lambado, followed by international aid groups.
Today there are perhaps 5,000 people living in the town again. The revival of Labado underscores how little it takes to make a huge difference on the ground. If western Governments help the African Union establish security, if we lean hard on both the government and the rebels to reach a peace agreement, then by the end of this year, Darfur might see peace breaking out.
For now, Labado is only an oasis and when people here step outside the town, they risk being murdered or raped by the Janjaweed militia.
Refugees fleeing to Kalma from a village called Saleya described how boys were seized by the Janjaweed stripped naked and tied up, their noses and ears cut off and their eyes gouged out. They were shot dead and left near a public well. Villagers got the message and fled.
Yet with all the atrocities, there have been hopeful signs. While Bush should do more, he has forthrightingly called the killings genocide and heaped aid on Darfur probably saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
If bush lead a determined effort to save Darfur there would be real hope for peace here, plus, the international image of the United States would improve. And a new Zogby poll commissioned by the international crisis group found that Americans by margins of 6 to 1 favor bolder action in Darfur.
But Bush is covering his eyes. Last year, administration figures such as Colin Powel and John Danforth led the response to Darfur, but now, Condoleeza Rice and the white house don’t seem much interested.
Darfur will never be another simolia or Iraq, because nobody is talking about sending in American combat troops. But simply an ounce of top-level attention such as a simple no-fly zone would go a long way to save lives.
In 1999, Madeleine Albright traveled to Sierra Leone and met child amputees there, wrenching that hearts of American television viewers and making that crisis a priority in a way that eventually resolved it. Rice could do the same for Darfur if only she would bother to go.
Bush values a frozen embryo. But, he hasn’t mustered much compassion for an entire population of terrorized widows and orphans. And he is cementing in place the very hopelessness he dreads, by continuing to avert his eyes from the first genocide of the 21st century.
Commentary by Nicholas Kristof
It’s sad, that all it would really thake to resolve this issue is a few of our f-15 fighters and an international no-fly zone, to shhot down any non comercial aircraft, to save hundreds of thousands of lives, yet, we choose to do nothing.
Antilla The Hun (Mr. Jack)

Mr. Jack Says: June 13th, 2005 at 6:35 am
Interesting how torture gets lots of debate, yet sitting back and watching genocide doesn’t…
Mr. Sane Says: June 15th, 2005 at 1:31 am
It’s interesting how Bush is attacked for not using the military in Sudan. Think he would be if he did?
What a lame attempt to rehabilitate Madeleine Albright and XPres Clinton. It’s so neat how you give credit where no credit is due and completely ignore minor conflicts such as Rawanda. clinton and albright did nothing while nearly one million people were murdered in three months!
Anna Says: June 15th, 2005 at 3:37 am
From the neoconservative perspective, Darfur is not strategically important. Darfu has no resources that we want to control and we don’t particularly want to put military bases there. So the people of Darfu are on their own. Frankly I think that we (i.e., the US) should stay out of Darfur. We (i.e., the US) have been fucking up everything we stick our (i.e., the US) noses into for the last 4.5 years or so.
Paul Says: June 17th, 2005 at 12:42 am
Ha Ha DaughterOfSam, you mean we didn’t screw it up before Little Bush got into office? Foreign interventionism is an ignorant stupidity no matter which party happens to be in the office. That’s why our founding fathers were so vehemently against it.
I sincerely hope that you are so naive to think that only one party’s attempts at foreign intervention have good endings. Neither party has a very good track record, and indeed historically, very few countries have good track records. Foreign interventionism is a symptom of a disease called imperialism, one which both liberals and neo-cons have had to varying degrees since the creation of the republic.
Unfortunately the Neo-Con hawks in charge now should know their history, but either they were never taught it (maybe they went to school in California) or they just DIDN’T LEARN FROM IT!
Anna Says: June 17th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Paul,
Point well taken.
Mr. Jack Says: June 18th, 2005 at 4:46 am
Paul, when you say Neo-Con, you do realize you’re talking about George Bush And Dick Cheney right?