SUDAN Bush Backs Away, The REAL War for Democracy and Human Rights

SUDAN
Bush Backs Away

During the past two years, hundreds of thousands of people have been systematically killed in Sudan. A State Department investigation into human rights abuses determined that genocide had been committed in Darfur, and the government was responsible. Today, experts expect Darfur's death toll to be even larger this year than last. This week finally brought some good -- albeit late and limited -- news: International donors "pledged an additional $200 million (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/05/26/darfur.peackeepers.ap/) Thursday to fund the African Union peacekeeping operation in Sudan's western Darfur." NATO also pledged air support in the form of helicopters to back up the AU. It was a much-needed first step, but should only be the beginning of a robust commitment by the international community to end the genocide. That, however, will take U.S. leadership -- but President Bush has been unwilling to lead and in recent months has been strangely silent on Sudan.

READ HIS LIPS: 137 days. That's how long it's been (http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=9399) since President Bush has publicly mentioned the word Darfur. (And even that mention was to praise humanitarian workers, not to condemn the ongoing massacre (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050110-6.html) .) As genocide unfolds in the Sudan, Bush has put his leadership on hold. To put this in context, the Coalition for International Justice estimates 500 people die in Sudan every day (http://www.cij.org/pdf/Press_Release_CIJ_Mortality_Study_April_21_2005.pdf) .

WHITE HOUSE FIGHTS AGAINST ACTION: Some lawmakers have tried to step into Bush's leadership vacuum to take action in Sudan. Led by Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ), the Senate last month unanimously passed the Darfur Accountability Act (http://corzine.senate.gov/press_office/record.cfm?id=232683) . The act would have pledged $90 million in U.S. aid for Darfur; even more important, it would have provided the framework to halt the atrocities by freezing the assets of the genocide's leaders, accelerating assistance to the African Union mission in Darfur, and establishing a no-fly zone over Darfur. But the White House actively fought against i (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/03/opinion/edkristof.php) t. On April 25, the White House sent a letter to its congressional allies in the House instructing them to delete the provisions about Darfur from the recent supplemental appropriations bill.

ALBRIGHT STEPS UP: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called on the international community (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/25/opinion/edalbright.php) to give the African Union far greater support. The AU currently has nearly 2,500 troops deployed in Sudan and may add another 3,000 police and troops this summer; that's not nearly enough to patrol an area roughly the size of France. Albright argues, "NATO should put a brigade-sized element at the disposal of the United Nations to augment the AU force until it can build up sufficient strength of its own." Albright also called on NATO to "seek authority from the Security Council for a new ... resolution establishing a no-flight zone over Darfur." The International Crisis Group has also issued a statement calling for international intervention to stop the killing in Darfur: http://www.darfurpeaceanddevelopment.org/icg.htm (http://www.darfurpeaceanddevelopment.org/icg.htm) .

ZOELLICK ZIG ZAGS: Another sign the White House is backing off its pledge to stop the slaughter in Sudan came during Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick's recent trip to Sudan. Zoellick downplayed the genocide, instead equivocating, "It's been a terrible series of events, and as you know, there's a debate (http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/05/06/darfur/) . The [United Nations] did a legal analysis of whether this was genocide, and their conclusion was that it was crimes against humanity as opposed to genocide." Then, asked how many people the United States thinks have died in Darfur, Zoellick "gave an astonishingly low estimate of 60,000 to 160,000 people." Some experts say the death count since the genocide began two years ago is at least double that, closer to 400,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601397.html) .

WHAT HAPPENED: One reason the administration is edging away from its pledge to fight the genocide in Sudan: The White House wants to count Sudan as an ally against terrorism. The Los Angeles Times recently reported the Bush administration is maintaining a clandestine friendship with Sudanese intelligence leader Maj. Gen Salah Abdallah Gosh, who is also playing a "key role" in directing the slaughter in Darfur. Just last month, the CIA ferried Gosh to Washington " for secret meetings sealing Khartoum's sensitive and previously veiled partnership with the administration." (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8342949) Here's the bottom line: The president has acknowledged the fight against terrorism is going to last several generations; the White House must learn to get what it needs from the Pakistans, Uzbekistans, and Sudans of this world without abandoning wholesale the values that are allegedly driving White House policy.

 

If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

Time will tell all the Truth.

VT