
Well this week the European Union has failed to create a plan in ending the misery in Sudan. Certainly not surprising, after all the United States and Europe (the Western world) did not lend a hand in Rwanda; why should they start now? Let us though take a look at the Sudanese genocide that is taking place and how it came into being.
In 1989, a coup d'etat by Arab Muslim extremists gained control of the government of Sudan. Soon, the government was dominated by members of the Iranian-backed National Islamic Front, and was engaged in a bloody jihad against African non-Muslims in the south, all directed by the Sudanese government at Khartoum. Because of their imposition of sharia (Koranic law), the rebel group in southern Sudan (the Sudan People's Liberation Movement) has been fighting a long civil war that at this time has been negotiated into a cease-fire, allowing the Khartoum government to engage in ethnic cleansing in Dafur the western region of Sudan. The Janjaweed, a traditionally nomadic group of armed Arab militias, is doing the majority of killing. In Dafur, over three hundred thousand people have been killed (murdered) while an additional 2.5 million have fled the region. By burning fields and grain storage silos in non-Muslim areas, and then blocking international aid to the starving population, they have used starvation as a weapon resulting in the deaths of over two million in the last two decades.
Learning their lesson from previous American reluctance to get involved with the Rwandan crisis in 1994, the Bush administration has labeled the Sudanese crisis as genocide. This was quickly followed by the U.N. assessment of the situation as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The Americans have responded by drafting a U.N. resolution with the intent of slapping sanctions against Sudan's oil industry, an assets freeze and travel ban targeting government and janjaweed leaders, and enforcement of a no-fly zone over western Sudan in order to get them to buckle under the pressure and stop arming the Janjaweed. Sounds great except for one problem, the security council turned it down and by doing so have condemned tens of thousands of people to their deaths. And which nation led the charge to overturn the resolution? France followed by China, Russia and a host of other European nations. Incredible.
Let us see why, starting with France; you remember, the country who stated that we were wrong in attacking Iraq and have condemned it as a moral transgression. Well it seems that Amnesty International has reported that the French have sold large quantities of bombs, grenades, ammo, and other military items to Sudan in recent years. In addition to this the French petroleum corporation Total Fina holds the rights to an oil concession in southern Sudan. According to the Institute on Religion and Democracy
In the mid-1990s Clinton administration noticed the mounting evidence of Khartoum's sponsorship of international and domestic terrorism. The American response was immediate. The U.S. government declared Sudan to be a terrorist state. It sponsored strong resolutions at the UN Commission for Human Rights condemning Khartoum for slavery and a host of other crimes. Strict U.S. economic sanctions were quickly imposed.
What did the Franco-German duo do? It led the EU in the opposite direction. France provided Khartoum with military intelligence for the prosecution of the jihad, while French and German helicopters have been used for ethnic cleansing in southern Sudan's oil fields. Driving black, non-Muslims out of their homes creates greater security for the investments of oil firms like Total Fina (France/Belgium) and the German engineering giant Mannesmann.
The Sudanese government's role in the revival of the country's once-dormant slave trade formed the greatest single political obstacle to legitimizing the EU's appeasement policy. France and Germany therefore spearheaded a UN whitewash of this crime against humanity. With the rest of the EU and their new East European satellite states in tow, they overcame American objections and easily persuaded the UN Commission on Human Rights to censor any use of the word ''slavery'' from official documents on Sudan and replace it with the euphemism ''abduction'' -- a lesser offense. This makes it easier in the French fight to remove the Sudanese as a human rights violator.
This is amazing to me. For centuries, European spheres of control have only led to misery and war whenever encountered. The hypocrisy being displayed by their leaders is so transparent as to be shocking in nature. Recently Chirac denounced the questionable regime in the Ivory Coast and has since slapped embargos on the country and invaded with thousands of French troops, which have since destroyed the entire air force of the Ivory Coast. This coming from a man who stated that America had no right to invade Iraq, who just last week stated, in complete contradiction to what he tells us, that we do not want to allow a system to develop that would lead only to anarchy or a regime of a fascist nature, ensuring that the French will not allow a government that is not to their liking (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6404613). Sounds familiar does it not?
Hollywood is awash with the creation of their movie Hotel Rwanda in which genocide is presented as a deplorable action by an evil regime over ten years ago. We should all learn lessons the film teaches us, its adherents tell us, all the while the killing continues in Sudan while we lament over our inactivity during the Rwandan crisis. I cannot wait until the film Hotel Sudan comes out ten years from now, where we will wonder why we didn't do anything to stop the killing and nominate this actor or that because we feel bad....

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home