If laid end to end, I wonder how far the column inches about the recent war in Lebanon would extend? Would they stretch right around the earth? Would they extend to the moon and back? Perhaps they would only reach as far as Sudan:
Two years ago, the then American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said that the killings in Darfur constituted genocide.
Since then, the number of deaths through violence, starvation and disease in Sudan’s western region has risen to at least 300,000, and of those displaced to about two million.
Despite the fact that genocide is a crime under international law, both the African Union and the United Nations have proved powerless to stop it.
Notwithstanding these horrifying statistics (which dwarf even the most overwrought claims about Lebanon), the response of the “world community” is very close to pin-drop silence. Apart from the occasional bloodless and anodyne article (such as the one linked to above) the MSM could not seem to care less. Where are the lurid photographs of dead Sudanese babies? Where are the demonstrations by “anti-war campaigners”? Where are the human shields? Where are the demands for a ceasefire? Where are the calls for a change of foreign policy? Where are the Nazi Germany comparisons? Where are the..ahem..’intrepid’ Western reporters with cry-me-a-river expressions on their faces? Where are the Church groups organising boycotts?
The answer is the same in all cases and there are no prizes for getting it right. No, the real question is why? Why the ocean of indifference to a sustained programme of mass murder and ethnic cleansing that is, by modern standards (and perhaps by any standards) horrific? It seems that the plight of impoverished Africans is enough to precipitate an avalanche of rock concerts and celebrity blubbing while hundreds of thousands of murdered Africans causes not even the thinnest batsqueak of protest.
I am just speculating here, naturally, but could this conspiracy of silence have something to do with the fact that the perpetrators of this real atrocity are Arab Muslims? Depressingly enough, I think the answer is yes. If even the Telegraph article I have linked to above is too timid to actually identify the aggressors (preferring instead the safe and neutral term ‘rebels’) then claims of ignorance or laziness simply will not do. I don’t imagine there would be quite this level of caginess if it was the Israelis who were laying waste to Darfur.
In my opinion, Darfur is kept off the radar screen because it is too embarrassing for the bien pensent. Having adopted the narrative of Arabs/Muslims as victims of oppression they are pretty much obliged to ignore or dismiss any evidence that might undermine that view (such is the mental paralysis induced by narrative). Besides, Africans living in the West seem disinclined to blow up airliners, so there is no need to waste precious air-time deliberating about the ‘root causes’ of their anger.
The horrors of Darfur cannot be excused by reference to Israeli or American ‘occupation’ and so it is locked away in the attic like a mad relative. Yes, it is ugly and unfair but at least we know for sure that there is not one single shred of decency or honesty in the entire (and preposterously misnamed) anti-war movement.
Someday, the antiwar lefties will be seen for what they truly are–thrush in the vagina of the West.
No; that’s the conspiracy theory end of the telescope.
The sadder truth is that it doesn’t matter to the world media for the same reason the Congo civil war doesn’t matter. There are no strategic interests of great powers at risk; and the victims are poor black Africans with no cultural links with anyone.
Were it not for the Islamic connection of the victims, then we would hear even less than we do about the murderous policies of Russia in Chechnya.
Were it not for the rump of white residents, then we would hear nothing of Zimbabwe.
A state can, as many of them do, massacre, or permit the massacre of, its own citizens. Other states regard that as, if not exactly legitimate, a private matter as long as they are not themselves affected. Only if those massacred are photogenic or well-connected will the world’s media make a fuss. And strategic questions will decide whether ‘international law’ and charges of genocide are invoked by the relevant national and international institutions.
“Who now remembers the Armenians?” It is still inconvenient to allies of Turkey to do so, sixty or more years after Hitler’s question.
To read popular, retrospective, accounts of WW2 you’d think it was fought to save Germany’s Jews and other minorities from mistreatment and eventual extermination. It wasn’t. Nor was the persecution of Jews headline news. It was a footnote to the “achievements” of the Nazi regime, uuntil that regime began to trample on the rights of other important states.
Guy, the victims of Darfur are mostly Muslims. Of course, so are their aggressors.
Because Muslims are involved, many automatically (and erroneously) assume religion is a major factor in the Darfur conflict. It isn’t.
Guy is right. There is no major power interests at stake. Also, the MSM isn’t reporting it because there is no anti-Bush angle.
Whoops:
Guy is right. There is no major power interests at stake. Also, the MSM isn’t reporting it because there is no anti-Bush angle
Of course there is also a logistical question. Sudan is big, unfriendly to reporters, and Darfur has nothing like electricity and running water. Nobody from a news agency is based there. The conflict is dispersed. There are no familiar structures or places.
Therefore getting pictures, let alone meaningful pictures, out of there is difficult and expensive – and disproportionately dangerous. And these days with no pictures there is no news. This rule applies too to Congo and Chechnya for disparate reasons.
Contrast Lebanon, a compact country, with Beirut (from all report the pleasantest most liberal city in the Arab world by far), blessed with plenty of news bureaux and good communications.
James,
Yes the victims in Darfur are Muslims, largely, but they are not being oppressed by non-Muslims, so that doesn’t give rise tp complaints on grounds of affiliation from the Muslim world, as Chechnya does, which waass my point. I note that the few organisations that agitated about the southern Sudan civil war were otherwise slightly crackpot Christian mission groups, who would probably have been less bothered if the victims had been Muslims in that case, or the government forces nominally Christian.
There is an organisation called “Genocide Watch” – I kid ye not. They stated much to my disbelief a while back that while what was going on in Darfur didn’t exactly constitute genocide it did constitute ethnic cleansing. So that’s OK-ish then.
There is also the Black Hawk Down factor. Since that incident and especially since the film it has become an established fact in the public’s mind in most countries that intervening in Africa is simply a vale of tears.
The journalists know that the cavalry aren’t going to turn up and set things aright. To them there is no real story. Just a grim tribal conflict which will kill, rape and maim until it burns itself out with no real resolution.
James, most of the victims are black African Animists and black Christians and black Muslims. The common thread is they are black and the people killing them are Arabs.
Perry is on the nail. This is essentially racially motivated.
Except because there are muslims on both sides certain “characters” are attempting to stir the jihadi pot.
Because, of course, Islam being the One True Religion for all people from Adam, muslims could never be rascist.
Step forward OBL.
Someday, the antiwar lefties will be seen for what they truly are–thrush in the vagina of the West.
So, presumably, you Keith are the Canesten Combi of Western Civilisation!
This is a long-running issue. After WWII, China invaded innocent Tibet and proceeded to extirpate the ancient Tibetan culture, along with non-cooperative Tibetans. Happened at the same time as the establishment of Israel. One of those two issues “seizes” the attention of the UN; the other does not.
Let’s be honest with ourselves. Western elites are generally left-wingers, for reasons which would take a long time to discuss. It is true of politicians (David Cameron?), the media (BBC?), and even corporate magnates (BP’s Lord John Browne?). And it is true in spades of all the wanna-be elites — the NGOs, the foundations, the academics.
So the western media supports left-winger Castro, despite the torture in his jails. The western media ignores the left-wing Russian government’s “Bomb It Flat” rules of engagement in Chechnya. The western media ignores fellow-traveller Islamists sawing the heads off of western victims. The common thread is that left-wing media & elites will support anyone who is even vaguely left-wing or who challenges the left-wingers’ western enemies.
There can be no good outcome from this in the long run. The least bad outcome would be civil wars in the west leading to the deaths of left-wing elites & their wanna-bes. The most bad outcome would be total victory for the left-wingers in the west, leading to the deaths of left-wing elites & their wanna-bes (along with most everybody else) at the hands of foreign aggressors.
re: “no strategic interests of great powers at risk”
Not true:
0) Arab is a cultural (self-identity) term much more than it is a racial term; “Arabs” (/Muslims) interested in extending influence.
1) The US has been trying to do some (ultimately useless) diplomacy regarding Sudan; China and Russia have been opposing; the last UNSC vote on Resolution: China, Russia, and Qatar (only current Muslim SC member) abstained; France has also been a problem getting anything through
2) Sudan was bin Laden’s home before moving to Afghanistan; bin Laden was friends with Sudan’s supreme leader (from the 9/11 comission report)
3) China (and some EU contries) have large oil interests in Sudan; US has none (as far as I know)
4) Animists and Christians also among victims
5) If Muslim is defined as someone who knows about the entrie teachings of the Quran (and the Hadith to a lesser extent) and agrees with them, then there are most likely a lot more Muslims in the aggressor category than in the victim category
6) Darfur/Sudan borders Libya; al-Gaddafi talked about “”Arab belt across Sahel”
These are just some of my quick thoughts on the matter; my actual expertise lies elsewhere.
re: “Someday, the antiwar lefties will be seen for what they truly are–thrush in the vagina of the West.”
Very disgusting imagery.
Good bye; no time for anything more elaborate or insightful.
Maybe Israel should “invade” Darfur?
Another reason for the lack of interest is that there isn’t any plausible way to blame America for what’s going on there.
Another point to consider is that leftists/liberals are racists.
They could deny this, but their real preferences were showed in a experiment in the past. They are generous, more than the conservatives, but when they give they give differently to different people (more to white, less to black).
So this is because Darfur don’t matter for them.
Darfur is about black, arab uncivilized, poor, desert dweller.
They see no value in them so they gove nothing to them or their pain.
The same is for Middle East people.
What give them value is the oil, the USA and the Jews .
They need the first and hate the latters.
Take out oil from the equation and their interest will go down.
Take out USA and Jews and the interest will vanish.
Not a lot of nations have officially acknowledged that it is a genocide, because then they would be obligated to intervene according to the Genocide Conventions. Signers not only promised not to do genocide but pledged to stop other nations from doing it.
The UN attempt at gun control is deadly to the disarmed and Darfur shows why. Gun control should be renamed Victim Disarmament. Only Arab Muslim males are permitted to own guns, in fact, the gummint gives them guns, up to 5 or 6 each. The black Sudanese are defenseless. Unless you count a machete or knife as adequate defense.
A black Sudanese Muslim girl is on trial for murdering her Arab rapist. No right to self defense! The UN doesn’t believe there is a right to self defense. You just have to rely on whatever defense the gummint provides for you, if any.
Self defense, the right to bear arms, the right to use them to protect one’s life, bodily integrity, and property. Foundation of freedom and the UN is dead set against it.
I’m surprised that Colin Powell called it a genocide, because that means he’d have to commit forces there, and I just don’t see him wanting to go to that loser hellhole. Quagmire waiting to happen.