Tweet
New York Times
June 26 2004
Dithering as Others Die
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
LONG THE SUDAN-CHAD BORDER - The ongoing genocide in Darfur is
finally, fortunately, making us uncomfortable. At this rate, with
only 250,000 more deaths it will achieve the gravitas of the Laci
Peterson case.
Hats off to Colin Powell and Kofi Annan, who are both traveling in
the next few days to Darfur. But the world has dithered for months
already. Unless those trips signal a new resolve, many of the Darfur
children I've been writing about over the last few months will have
survived the Janjaweed militia only to die now of hunger or diarrhea.
I've had e-mail from readers who are horrified by the slaughter, but
who also feel that Africa is always a mess and that there's not much
we can do. So let me address the cynics.
Look, I'm sure it's terrible in Darfur. But lots of places are
horrific, and we can't help everyone. Why obsess about Sudan?
The U.N. describes Darfur as the No. 1 humanitarian crisis in the
world today. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates
that at best 320,000 more people will still die of hunger and disease
this year - or significantly more if we continue to do nothing.
Moreover, apart from our obligation to act under the Genocide
Convention, acquiescence only encourages more genocide - hence the
question attributed to Hitler, "Who today remembers the Armenian
extermination?"
Haven't we invaded enough Muslim countries?
The U.S. is not going to invade Sudan. That's not a plausible option.
But we can pass a tough U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing
troops, as well as more support for African peacekeepers. If Germany,
France and Spain don't want to send troops to Iraq, then let them
deploy in Darfur. And we must publicly condemn the genocide.
What good is a speech in the U.N.? Why would Sudan listen?
Governments tend to be embarrassed about exterminating minorities. In
Sudan, a bit of publicity about Darfur coupled with a written
statement from President Bush led Sudan to agree to a cease-fire in
April and to improve access for aid agencies. More publicity prompted
it to promise to disband the Janjaweed raiders.
Sudan lies and wriggles out of its promises, but its genocide is
still calibrated to the international reaction. Likewise, it is still
denying visas and blocking supplies for emergency relief, but
pressure has led it to improve access.
So, Mr. Bush, if a single written statement will do so much good, why
won't you let the word "Darfur" pass your lips? Why the passivity in
the face of evil? You could save tens of thousands of lives by making
a forceful speech about Darfur. Conversely, your refusal to do so is
costing tens of thousands of lives.
If the Sudanese were notorious pirates of American videotapes, if
they were sheltering Mullah Omar, you'd be all over them. So why not
stand up just as forcefully to genocide?
Mr. Bush seems proud of his "moral clarity," his willingness to
recognize evil and bluntly describe it as such. Well, Darfur reeks of
evil, and we are allowing it to continue.
What can ordinary Americans do?
Yell! Mr. Bush and John Kerry have been passive about Darfur because
voters are. If citizens contact the White House or their elected
representatives and demand action, our leaders will be happy to
follow.
Readers can also contribute to one of the many aid agencies saving
lives in Darfur. (I've listed some at
www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, Posting 489.)
Be realistic. We don't have our national interest at stake in Darfur.
But we do. Sudan's chaos is destabilizing surrounding countries,
especially Chad, which is an increasing source of oil for us.
Moreover, when states collapse into chaos, they become staging
grounds for terrorism and for diseases like ebola and polio (both
have broken out recently in Sudan).
In any case, America is a nation that has values as well as
interests. We betrayed those values when we ignored past genocides,
and we are betraying them again now.
In my last three columns, I wrote about Magboula Muhammad Khattar, a
24-year-old woman struggling to keep her children alive since her
parents and husband were killed by the Janjaweed. Each time I visited
the tree she lives under, she shared with me the only things she had
to offer: a smile and a bowl of brackish water.
Is a cold shoulder all we have to offer in return?
June 26 2004
Dithering as Others Die
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
LONG THE SUDAN-CHAD BORDER - The ongoing genocide in Darfur is
finally, fortunately, making us uncomfortable. At this rate, with
only 250,000 more deaths it will achieve the gravitas of the Laci
Peterson case.
Hats off to Colin Powell and Kofi Annan, who are both traveling in
the next few days to Darfur. But the world has dithered for months
already. Unless those trips signal a new resolve, many of the Darfur
children I've been writing about over the last few months will have
survived the Janjaweed militia only to die now of hunger or diarrhea.
I've had e-mail from readers who are horrified by the slaughter, but
who also feel that Africa is always a mess and that there's not much
we can do. So let me address the cynics.
Look, I'm sure it's terrible in Darfur. But lots of places are
horrific, and we can't help everyone. Why obsess about Sudan?
The U.N. describes Darfur as the No. 1 humanitarian crisis in the
world today. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates
that at best 320,000 more people will still die of hunger and disease
this year - or significantly more if we continue to do nothing.
Moreover, apart from our obligation to act under the Genocide
Convention, acquiescence only encourages more genocide - hence the
question attributed to Hitler, "Who today remembers the Armenian
extermination?"
Haven't we invaded enough Muslim countries?
The U.S. is not going to invade Sudan. That's not a plausible option.
But we can pass a tough U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing
troops, as well as more support for African peacekeepers. If Germany,
France and Spain don't want to send troops to Iraq, then let them
deploy in Darfur. And we must publicly condemn the genocide.
What good is a speech in the U.N.? Why would Sudan listen?
Governments tend to be embarrassed about exterminating minorities. In
Sudan, a bit of publicity about Darfur coupled with a written
statement from President Bush led Sudan to agree to a cease-fire in
April and to improve access for aid agencies. More publicity prompted
it to promise to disband the Janjaweed raiders.
Sudan lies and wriggles out of its promises, but its genocide is
still calibrated to the international reaction. Likewise, it is still
denying visas and blocking supplies for emergency relief, but
pressure has led it to improve access.
So, Mr. Bush, if a single written statement will do so much good, why
won't you let the word "Darfur" pass your lips? Why the passivity in
the face of evil? You could save tens of thousands of lives by making
a forceful speech about Darfur. Conversely, your refusal to do so is
costing tens of thousands of lives.
If the Sudanese were notorious pirates of American videotapes, if
they were sheltering Mullah Omar, you'd be all over them. So why not
stand up just as forcefully to genocide?
Mr. Bush seems proud of his "moral clarity," his willingness to
recognize evil and bluntly describe it as such. Well, Darfur reeks of
evil, and we are allowing it to continue.
What can ordinary Americans do?
Yell! Mr. Bush and John Kerry have been passive about Darfur because
voters are. If citizens contact the White House or their elected
representatives and demand action, our leaders will be happy to
follow.
Readers can also contribute to one of the many aid agencies saving
lives in Darfur. (I've listed some at
www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, Posting 489.)
Be realistic. We don't have our national interest at stake in Darfur.
But we do. Sudan's chaos is destabilizing surrounding countries,
especially Chad, which is an increasing source of oil for us.
Moreover, when states collapse into chaos, they become staging
grounds for terrorism and for diseases like ebola and polio (both
have broken out recently in Sudan).
In any case, America is a nation that has values as well as
interests. We betrayed those values when we ignored past genocides,
and we are betraying them again now.
In my last three columns, I wrote about Magboula Muhammad Khattar, a
24-year-old woman struggling to keep her children alive since her
parents and husband were killed by the Janjaweed. Each time I visited
the tree she lives under, she shared with me the only things she had
to offer: a smile and a bowl of brackish water.
Is a cold shoulder all we have to offer in return?