figure i'd post Kristof's op-ed here

"ALONG THE CHAD-SUDAN BORDER — For decades, whenever the topic of genocide has come up, the refrain has been, "Never again."

Yet right now, the government of Sudan is engaging in genocide against three large African tribes in its Darfur region here. Some 1,000 people are being killed a week, tribeswomen are being systematically raped, 700,000 people have been driven from their homes, and Sudan's Army is even bombing the survivors.

And the world yawns.

So what do we tell refugees like Muhammad Yakob Hussein, who lives in the open desert here because his home was burned and his family members killed in Sudan? He now risks being shot whenever he goes to a well to fetch water. Do we advise such refugees that "never again" meant nothing more than that a Führer named Hitler will never again construct death camps in Germany?

Interviews with refugees like Mr. Hussein — as well as with aid workers and U.N. officials — leave no doubt that attacks in Darfur are not simply random atrocities. Rather, as a senior U.N. official, Mukesh Kapila, put it, "It is an organized attempt to do away with a group of people."

"All I have left is this jalabiya," or cloak, said Mr. Hussein, who claimed to be 70 but looked younger (ages here tend to be vague aspirations, and they usually emerge in multiples of 10). Mr. Hussein said he'd fled three days earlier after an attack in which his three brothers were killed and all his livestock stolen: "Everything is lost. They burned everything."

Another man, Khamis Muhammad Issa, a strapping 21-year-old, was left with something more than his clothes — a bullet in the back. He showed me the bulge of the bullet under the skin. The bullet wiggled under my touch.

"They came in the night and burned my village," he said. "I was running away and they fired. I fell, and they thought I was dead."

In my last column, I called these actions "ethnic cleansing." But let's be blunt: Sudan's behavior also easily meets the definition of genocide in Article 2 of the 1948 convention against genocide. That convention not only authorizes but also obligates the nations ratifying it — including the U.S. — to stand up to genocide.

The killings are being orchestrated by the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, partly through the Janjaweed militia, made up of Arab raiders armed by the government. The victims are non-Arabs: blacks in the Zaghawa, Massaliet and Fur tribes. "The Arabs want to get rid of anyone with black skin," Youssef Yakob Abdullah said. In the area of Darfur that he fled, "there are no blacks left," he said.

In Darfur, the fighting is not over religion, for the victims as well as the killers are Muslims. It is more ethnic and racial, reflecting some of the ancient tension between herdsmen (the Arabs in Darfur) and farmers (the black Africans, although they herd as well). The Arabs and non-Arabs compete for water and forage, made scarce by environmental degradation and the spread of the desert.

In her superb book on the history of genocide, "A Problem from Hell," Samantha Power focuses on the astonishing fact that U.S. leaders always denounce massacres in the abstract or after they are over — but, until Kosovo, never intervened in the 20th century to stop genocide and "rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred." The U.S. excuses now are the same ones we used when Armenians were killed in 1915 and Bosnians and Rwandans died in the 1990's: the bloodshed is in a remote area; we have other priorities; standing up for the victims may compromise other foreign policy interests.

I'm not arguing that we should invade Sudan. But one of the lessons of history is that very modest efforts can save large numbers of lives. Nothing is so effective in curbing ethnic cleansing as calling attention to it.

President Bush could mention Darfur or meet a refugee. The deputy secretary of state could visit the border areas here in Chad. We could raise the issue before the U.N. And the onus is not just on the U.S.: it's shameful that African and Muslim countries don't offer at least a whisper of protest at the slaughter of fellow Africans and Muslims.

Are the world's pledges of "never again" really going to ring hollow one more time? "

and the allusion to the armenian genocide is pretty true, another decade, the same old (*)(*)(*)(*)

Yes, Ank, it's amazing what slips under the radar. This kind of thing has been going on a long time and is way beyond partisanism. It sure seems that unless there is some kind of political benefit to helping someone, we just don't care much, do we?

Oh, and by the way, the Hogs haven't been the Horns' (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) in a long time. How many football games in a row have we won from you guys? I have great respect for UT's teams, but it ought to go both ways, you know?

2 in a row unfortunately, but fear not, that changes when we come to town next september

'Hogs used to be the #1 rival, then they bounced for the "So? Everyone Cheats" Conference , a shame, that was one quality rivalry

have you read "'Horns, 'Hogs, and Nixon Coming?" it's a pretty good book on the '69 "game of the century," you should grab it.

Actually, I think it's three in a row, and four of the last five. Anyway, we're gonna have our hands full with a bunch of new starters, but I think we'll be ok. I do have a lot of respect for the Texas program. I like the players and the coaches but have had some problems with some of the fans. Some seem to think folks should bow down because of things the Horns did 30+ years ago. I'm not saying you, either. I started following SWC football in 1964, so I go quite a ways back. I lived and died during some of those games. I remember the '69 game distinctly, and many other of those matchups. Actually, I like to see all the teams in my area do well. I live in Fort Smith, AR, so unless they are playing an SEC team, I pull for OU, Texas, OSU, and of course, the Hogs. Lots of people thought the SWC was Texas and Arkansas. Not so. Ank, I enjoy your posts!

There is a post speaking about liberal media bias, of course theres bias in the media, but lets not act like theres no right-wing bias.
FOX News acts like its covering the 9/11 commision but just as there is something negative against the administration the anchor cuts in and they go to commercial, they give the illusion they are fair and balanced but we all know better. CNN as well as really gone down hill after it was bought out by the right wingers.

Your ship is sinking time to learn how to swim.

the thread title was a bit of sarcasm, I just wanted to bring some light to the Sudanese genocide because it's getting absolutely 0 press.

Bye gawd, I'm gonna have my double-wide, my 4x4, my dirt bike, snow machine, and I don't give a rip how many Sudanese lives it costs...

Isn't Sudan near Idaho? Bye golly, if them Sudan fellers would just git out an do an honest days work, maybe they wouldn't be on welfare and have twenty kids.


Satire aside, good post Ank. There is zero media coverage of the situation along the Sudan/Chad border. Part of that is that the Sudanese government (or what passes for one) doesn't want information getting out, but mostly it's because few actually care about it.

oc

I'm not sure what madia bias has to do with anything here. Or how that is sarcastic

As far as problems, you do expose a problem that has had little press. I don't know if you have any solutions. The UN is supposed to try to help fight these situations and they seem to be sitting on thier hands.

It is a tough call. I mean if the Iraq "liberation" is justified solely on Saddam being an evil man, then there are a ton of countries, including the Sudan that we should invade to liberate the people. I personally don't think this is right for Iraq or Sudan. The best solution may be to give arms to those being slaughtered to be able to fight back. Of course that is a double edge sword. Like we gave arms to Afganistan to fight Russia and then those arms are used to create a governement hostile to us and supporting terrorism against us. It would have been better is Russia stayed in some respects.

So you are right that the situation sucks. But what should be done. Start a war to overthrow the government?

just anti-third party! And is controlled by Duopoly structure to oppress the rest of political opinions!

You know, with GW's righteousness, you would think that he would want to invade all countries oppressing their people and spread the good democracy through the land.
Oh wait, i forgot, only if it benefits us. Right. Thanks Ank for the post, and uh, go Buckeyes!!!hahahahahahahaha