Net Roots Movement

Lets Make Change.

The US needs not let self-interest dictate policy when genocide is of concern

Facing the big question of where to actually try war criminals for the conflict in the western, Darfur region of the Sudan, the UN has still remained quiet on the issue. The US opposes using the International Criminal Court at the Hague to prosecute Janjaweed and government leaders responsible for what former Secretary of State Colin Powell legally defined as a “genocide” because they fear the tides would be turned to prosecute Americans guilty of international crimes and, in some cases, Americans prosecuted for political reasons.

Though no new developments have been made in Darfur, the UN did pass a resolution that would send 10,000 troops to southern Sudan to help stabilize the post-war region.

According to the State Department, as Saudi oil sources are running dry, American dependency on African oil is going to almost double by 2010. If genocide won’t get us to pay attention, maybe oil will.

I like the gesture and the intentions. But I will say it again: we cannot – we must not – let another Rwanda happen before our own eyes. Americans have a tendency to forget Africa or express dangerous apathy. The continent of Africa is not comprised of only failed states and AIDS ravaged populations but great natural resources just waiting for diversification and use.

70,000 people are dead but US self-interest in interfering in stopping genocide. We’re hindering actual process with our self-concerned self-absorbtion. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in self-interest, but I think it is time to brush it aside.

March 29, 2005 - Posted by | The Progressive Movement


  1. Ho hum. Liberals feel that the U.S. needs to interfere in foreign affairs for humanitarian reasons, but when that and reasons concerning terror are combined, its a no.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 29, 2005 | Reply

  2. At the outbreak of the war, when I was told that there were weapons of mass destruction involved, I supported US actions. Now I feel misled in Iraq. I support the pursuit of terrorists in Afghanistan. What I do not support is the manipulative way in which the Bush administration deceived its people into supporting an unjustified war of personal interest. Even mainstream media has shown that the Bush adminsitration had personal interest in Iraq before 9/11 and that its first policy meetings about this non-issue occurred within its first two weeks of his presidency.

    I support the US allowing the UN to do its job. When self-interest intereferes with the work of a global organization, then yes, I will complain. We let UN peacekeppers do their job in Bosnia. Look at how successful that was. The Hague has prosecuted those accused of war crimes. So why – I ask you – won’t the US let the UN do its job? 70,000 people are already dead. It certainly seems like a justified cause.

    Comment by shana | March 29, 2005 | Reply

  3. Had the UN declared the situation in Sudan, Genocide, which it clearly was, I would have been more inclined to let them be part of the judicial process in prosecuting the War Criminals there. Yet since they refused to even call the crimes there Genocide, as then they would have, according to the UN charter, had to act, how anyone can ever think they would be competent enough to prosecute the War Criminals. Also, I just love the way liberals cry out over our inaction in Sudan, yet Saddam was every bit as bad as these War Criminals, yet liberals tried at every turn to keep Saddam in power. While WMD might have been one of the reasons to remove Saddam, it certainly was not the only reason, and anyone that calls for US intervention in Sudan, yet opposes US intervention in the Middle East, is displaying the height of hypocrisy. I can understand liberals not liking the way the Bush administrant went about removing Saddam, heck, I love Bush, and even I can find faults, but to be against all our efforts there is the same as being against any efforts in Sudan. After all, if crimes against humanity are good enough reasons to interfere in Sudan, they should be good enough reasons to interfere in Iraq.

    Comment by ÐÇRøçk§ | March 30, 2005 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: