Bush Points the Way

[Gordon B]

Has anybody besides Nick Kristof been following Sudan? Bill Ashline, maybe? I know little about the situation beyond Kristof's column but his advice for Bush and the leaders of other countries seems sound to me.

May 29, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush Points the Way
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

I doff my hat, briefly, to President Bush.

Sudanese peasants will be naming their sons "George Bush" because he scored a humanitarian victory this week that could be a momentous event around the globe — although almost nobody noticed. It was Bush administration diplomacy that led to an accord to end a 20-year civil war between Sudan's north and south after two million deaths.

If the peace holds, hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved, millions of refugees will return home, and a region of Africa may be revived.

But there's a larger lesson here as well: messy African wars are not insoluble, and Western pressure can help save the day. So it's all the more shameful that the world is failing to exert pressure on Sudan to halt genocide in its Darfur region. Darfur is unaffected by the new peace accords.

I'm still haunted by what I saw when I visited the region in March: a desert speckled with fresh graves of humans and the corpses of donkeys, the empty eyes of children who saw their fathers killed, the guilt of parents fumbling to explain how they had survived while their children did not.

The refugees tell of sudden attacks by the camel-riding Janjaweed Arab militia, which is financed by the Sudanese government, then a panic of shooting and fire. Girls and women are routinely branded after they are raped, to increase the humiliation.

One million Darfur people are displaced within Sudan, and 200,000 have fled to Chad. Many of those in Sudan are stuck in settlements like concentration camps.

I've obtained a report by a U.N. interagency team documenting conditions at a concentration camp in the town of Kailek: Eighty percent of the children are malnourished, there are no toilets, and girls are taken away each night by the guards to be raped. As inmates starve, food aid is diverted by guards to feed their camels.

The standard threshold for an "emergency" is one death per 10,000 people per day, but people in Kailek are dying at a staggering 41 per 10,000 per day — and for children under 5, the rate is 147 per 10,000 per day. "Children suffering from malnutrition, diarrhea, dehydration and other symptoms of the conditions under which they are being held live in filth, directly exposed to the sun," the report says.

"The team members, all of whom are experienced experts in humanitarian affairs, were visibly shaken," the report declares. It describes "a strategy of systematic and deliberate starvation being enforced by the GoS [government of Sudan] and its security forces on the ground." (Read the 11-page report here.)

Demographers at the U.S. Agency for International Development estimate that at best, "only" 100,000 people will die in Darfur this year of malnutrition and disease. If things go badly, half a million will die.

This is not a natural famine, but a deliberate effort to eliminate three African tribes in Darfur so Arabs can take their land. The Genocide Convention defines such behavior as genocide, and it obliges nations to act to stop it. That is why nobody in the West wants to talk about Darfur — because of a fear that focusing on the horror will lead to a deployment in Sudan.

But it's not a question of sending troops, but of applying pressure — the same kind that succeeded in getting Sudan to the north-south peace agreement. If Mr. Bush would step up to the cameras and denounce this genocide, if he would send Colin Powell to the Chad-Sudan border, if he would telephone Sudan's president again to demand humanitarian access to the concentration camps, he might save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Yet while Mr. Bush has done far too little, he has at least issued a written statement, sent aides to speak forcefully at the U.N. and raised the matter with Sudan's leaders. That's more than the Europeans or the U.N. has done. Where are Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac? Where are African leaders, like Nelson Mandela? Why isn't John Kerry speaking out forcefully? And why are ordinary Americans silent?

Islamic leaders abroad have been particularly shameful in standing with the Sudanese government oppressors rather than with the Muslim victims in Darfur. Do they care about dead Muslims only when the killers are Israelis or Americans?

As for America, we have repeatedly failed to stand up to genocide, whether of Armenians, Jews, Cambodians or Rwandans. Now we're letting it happen again.

[Uli]

Nice article, Gordon.

The thread name, however, could make Crhis A blush.

Puke is more like it, Uli.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Puke is more like it, Uli.

Is the thread title more disquieting to you than the genocide ongoing in the Sudan?

[BFrank]

What is a problem is that Bush's credibility is so low at this point that anything he does is suspect - even when it looks good on the surface. He either doesn't follow through on pronouncements and policies or he does the opposite of what he says.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by BFrank

What is a problem is that Bush's credibility is so low at this point that anything he does is suspect - even when it looks good on the surface. He either doesn't follow through on pronouncements and policies or he does the opposite of what he says.

That's true, but not everybody feels that way about his credibility. 40% of likely voters in the latest Gallup poll describe themselves as "strong supporters" of Bush in the upcoming election.

[BFrank]

Also from Gallup:

LATEST SNAPSHOT

% GEORGE W. BUSH 47
% JOHN KERRY 49

May 21-23, 2004
Based on Likely Voters

+++

At any rate, I'm just pointing out why people such as Chris and myself are less than enthused when this type of news is released.

You said it, BFrank. Think of how many unfulfilled promises Bush has made. And if it wasn't for the fact that he has a serious image problem and much damage control to do before the election, he wouldn't even be making the promises

To follow the Bush trail is to build up one's cynicism.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by BFrank

At any rate, I'm just pointing out why people such as Chris and myself are less than enthused when this type of news is released.

You two guys are not enthused that Bush has been instrumental in stopping genocide in Sudan. I didn't say it, you did. You'd rather he'd have turned a blind eye so there would be one more thing to use to hammer him?

[Vince Kargatis]

I do find very odd any reactions other than relief and gratitude towards all involved parties. That said, I never got the impression from the various reports I've read that the Bush administration served as a primary or notable broker in this agreement. I am curious - Gordon, can you find any articles (not op-eds) on the agreement that describe the administration's "instrumental" role? I've looked briefly, but couldn't find any. And unfortunately, this agreement only addresses the southern conflict - the western one is still sketchy, although I think they've gotten as far as a cease-fire.

In any case, let's all hope that progress is kept up against this horrible situation.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

I do find very odd any reactions other than relief and gratitude towards all involved parties. That said, I never got the impression from the various reports I've read that the Bush administration served as a primary or notable broker in this agreement. I am curious - Gordon, can you find any articles (not op-eds) on the agreement that describe the administration's "instrumental" role? I've looked briefly, but couldn't find any. And unfortunately, this agreement only addresses the southern conflict - the western one is still sketchy, although I think they've gotten as far as a cease-fire.

In any case, let's all hope that progress is kept up against this horrible situation.

Vince, I just started searching. A Globe and Mail editorial credits the Bush administration as well. Globe and Mail editorial on Sudan peace accord

The Voice of America has a news story. It's a news source, admittedly a government controlled one. VOA

The Guardian has a news story crediting the Administration complete with speculation about the Administration's motives.
Guardian

The congratulations should be muted until the atrocities in Darfur are stopped, IMO.

[Jazzooo]

Celebrating an 'end' to the genocide after a few days is premature, regardless of who the president is. It might be like all the hoopla about "The Roadmap To Peace," and the much celebrated ceasefire that broke down soon enough.

[Vince Kargatis]

Premature celebration is what puzzles me about the Nobel Peace Prize. Science prizes are awarded often decades after the work, to verify its importance. Seems the same rationale would apply to the Peace prize too. Offering it as a carrot, so to speak, seems pretty silly: "Make impressive and arduous efforts to bring peace to your region haunted by complex problems, and you might even win a Nobel!! And hard cash!!".

Anyone know offhand why the Nobel committee treats the Peace prize differently than all the others? I suppose the dumbest, most mundane explanation is that the Peace prize is the oldest, and it's just the way Nobel wrote it up. But jeesh. I wonder how many winners have seen their efforts at the time washed away by later events?

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

You two guys are not enthused that Bush has been instrumental in stopping genocide in Sudan. I didn't say it, you did. You'd rather he'd have turned a blind eye so there would be one more thing to use to hammer him?

Not "less than enthused" about stopping genocide, but "less than enthused" about reports that credit Bush and his crew with doing the right thing. In most cases, they turn out not to be true or the administration drops the ball in the process. A glaring example would be the Israeli/Palestinian "road map" to peace.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

Premature celebration is what puzzles me about the Nobel Peace Prize. Science prizes are awarded often decades after the work, to verify its importance. Seems the same rationale would apply to the Peace prize too. Offering it as a carrot, so to speak, seems pretty silly: "Make impressive and arduous efforts to bring peace to your region haunted by complex problems, and you might even win a Nobel!! And hard cash!!".

Anyone know offhand why the Nobel committee treats the Peace prize differently than all the others? I suppose the dumbest, most mundane explanation is that the Peace prize is the oldest, and it's just the way Nobel wrote it up. But jeesh. I wonder how many winners have seen their efforts at the time washed away by later events?

All of the Nobel prizes date to 1901 except for economics, which only goes back to 1969. I never thought about it before, but I agree with you that the peace prize should not be related to current events but to efforts to bring peace that survived the test of time.

The Israeli/Palestinian "road map" is a good example, BFrank. Did the Bush regime ever come through on his AIDS promise? I seem to recall that it largely remains unfulfilled.

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by Chris A

The Israeli/Palestinian "road map" is a good example, BFrank. Did the Bush regime ever come through on his AIDS promise? I seem to recall that it largely remains unfulfilled.

Well, there's a VERY long list, Chris. I was just noting one.

We could start a whole new thread just based on failed promises.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Chris A

The Israeli/Palestinian "road map" is a good example, BFrank. Did the Bush regime ever come through on his AIDS promise?

Actually, yes. Just in the last two weeks Bush signed an "emergency plan" into law, which calls for the U.S. to spend $15 billion on fighting AIDS in Africa over the next five years. This is three times the amount that the U.S. contributed under Clinton. C'mon guys: for once, give credit where credit is due: One quote from the BBC article pasted below: "You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Mr Geldof, who organised the 1985 Live Aid fund raising concert for Ethiopia, told Britain's Guardian newspaper.

Campaigners welcome US Aids plan

International Aids campaigners have broadly welcomed a $15bn plan by the United States to fight the disease in Africa and the Caribbean.
US President George W Bush signed the emergency plan into law, describing the need to take steps against the disease as among the most urgent requirements of the modern world.

The legislation will nearly triple US contributions towards fighting Aids and provides funding over the next five years.

Rock star and developing world campaigner Sir Bob Geldof is among those who have praised the measure.

However, opposition Democrats in the United States have warned much of the money might not be available, and many questions remain about how the plan will be implemented.

'Step in the right direction'

Uganda, which has lost more than 900,000 people to Aids-related illnesses since the disease was first diagnosed in the country since 1982, backed the US plan.

A spokesman for Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said the money would be a great boost to Ugandan efforts to combat the disease.

In the Caribbean, a senior Aids worker, Dr Yitades Gabri, also welcomed the move.

"This is actually a step in the right direction," Dr Gabri, chairman of the Caribbean Coalition of National Aids Programme Co-ordinators told the BBC.

The head of a joint United Nations programme on HIV and Aids, Peter Piot, said the money could dramatically reduce deaths from the disease that has killed more than 20 million people.

Surprising aid and family planning organisations, Sir Bob Geldof had warm words for President Bush.

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Mr Geldof, who organised the 1985 Live Aid fund raising concert for Ethiopia, told Britain's Guardian newspaper.

Conditions attached

At a signing ceremony at the State Department, President Bush said Aids was filling graveyards, creating orphans and leaving millions in a desperate fight for their own lives across Africa.

Mr Bush said his country had a moral duty to act - and he called on Europe, Canada and Japan to follow Washington's example.

"I will remind them that time is not on our side. Every day of delay means 8,000 more Aids deaths in Africa and 14,000 more infections," Mr Bush said.

The plan has come under fire from some quarters in Washington angry that a third of the money spent on prevention must be used for projects promoting abstinence rather than safer sex.

The new package recommends that 55% of direct aid should go to treatment programmes, 20% to prevention, 15% to care for those dying of Aids and 10% to children orphaned by the disease.

The legislation must also be approved annually by the US Congress.

[BFrank]

A couple of disturbing lines (not atypical of how these guys work):

"However, opposition Democrats in the United States have warned much of the money might not be available, and many questions remain about how the plan will be implemented."

and

"The plan has come under fire from some quarters in Washington angry that a third of the money spent on prevention must be used for projects promoting abstinence rather than safer sex."

Once again.........it remains to be seen if this is for real.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by BFrank

A glaring example would be the Israeli/Palestinian "road map" to peace.

Yes, this is such a contrast to all the success stories of previous administrations.

[frankiepop]

if you are looking for information on this issue as i was, then you also might be interested in a somewhat more in-depth & interesting coverage
on the bbc world service radio 7
which can be found at------> bbc.co.uk/radio

and click on the show.........'This Week and Africa'


another african bbc show noted goats and rams have been set out for bbque as gifts in celebration of peace!!


....bbc gave a similar analysis as to what gordon noted above on the 1st post....the U.N., British, and United States had just run out of patience with the acting parties in sudan....

[BFrank]

Much more successful and engaged than the current administration - Clinton in particular. He just ran out of time. Things have deteriorated badly in the past 3.5 years (Sharon/Arafat not helpful, either, BTW)

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by BFrank

A couple of disturbing lines (not atypical of how these guys work):

"However, opposition Democrats in the United States have warned much of the money might not be available, and many questions remain about how the plan will be implemented."

That's your standard-issue opposition party spin, BFrank.

and

"The plan has come under fire from some quarters in Washington angry that a third of the money spent on prevention must be used for projects promoting abstinence rather than safer sex."

Once again.........it remains to be seen if this is for real.

Heaven forbid! 20 percent of the money goes to prevention, and one-third of that goes to teach abstinence. Which means two-thirds goes toward contraceptive distribution and so forth. AIDS activists around the world are happy with the plan, which is revolutionary in its scope.

If it turns out that the money comes through and is implemented to fight AIDS in Africa, will you guys finally give Bush credit for doing something important right?

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by BFrank

Much more successful and engaged than the current administration - Clinton in particular. He just ran out of time. Things have deteriorated badly in the past 3.5 years (Sharon/Arafat not helpful, either, BTW)

Ah yes, Clinton just "ran out of time." He'd have had this thing nipped in the bud by now.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Ah yes, Clinton just "ran out of time." He'd have had this thing nipped in the bud by now.

Even Clinton admits that he failed (yes, that's FAILED; not "ran out of time") because Arafat played him. Clinton was a fucking fool to think that he could schmooze everybody over there anyway. If that's what the toolboxes want to call "being engaged" so be it. I call it getting your ass rolled and fucking your friends in the process.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Heaven forbid! 20 percent of the money goes to prevention, and one-third of that goes to teach abstinence. Which means two-thirds goes toward contraceptive distribution and so forth. AIDS activists around the world are happy with the plan, which is revolutionary in its scope.

If it turns out that the money comes through and is implemented to fight AIDS in Africa, will you guys finally give Bush credit for doing something important right?

I'll believe that the Bush administration's pledge to fight AIDS in Africa, was for real if the help goes to all family-planning clinics, whether or not they also counsel those who wish to have abortions. AIDS and abortions are two different things, but they are both handled through family-planning clinics.

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

Yes, this is such a contrast to all the success stories of previous administrations.

The Clinton Administration also failed to bring peace to the region, but--unlike the Bush/Sharon alliance--they did not make the situation worse. Bush's road map appears to have led to hell.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

I'll believe that the Bush administration's pledge to fight AIDS in Africa, was for real if the help goes to all family-planning clinics, whether or not they also counsel those who wish to have abortions. AIDS and abortions are two different things, but they are both handled through family-planning clinics.

Patricia, 55 percent of the $15 billion is supposed to go to treatment for AIDS victims: providing life-saving drugs to those who are HIV-positive. That would be through hospitals, not family-planning clinics.

Originally Posted by crawjo

Patricia, 55 percent of the $15 billion is supposed to go to treatment for AIDS victims: providing life-saving drugs to those who are HIV-positive. That would be through hospitals, not family-planning clinics.

There's the rub.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

Even Clinton admits that he failed (yes, that's FAILED; not "ran out of time") because Arafat played him. Clinton was a fucking fool to think that he could schmooze everybody over there anyway. If that's what the toolboxes want to call "being engaged" so be it. I call it getting your ass rolled and fucking your friends in the process.

Clinton did much worse when he sent Jimmy Carter to North Korea to get the NK's to abandon their quest to develop nuclear weaponry. That's a huge, disaster.

Arafat made fools out of Clinton and Barak and made possible the ascent of Sharon.