There is a need for action in Darfur
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Michael Ragland
Published: April 6, 2008
China is a significant trading partner with the Sudanese government in Khartoum, yet calls for boycott have fallen on “deaf ears.” President Bush has stated every intention in attending the 2008 Chinese
Olympics. Besides Darfur, China has a disgraceful record in Tibet where it has mass killed.
Here is the typical gobbledygook that comes from the U.S. State Department, “The U.S. approach to the conflict in Darfur fully recognizes its regional dimensions. We consult frequently with other governments in the region, including those of Chad, CAR and Libya. On his first visit to Africa in his new capacity, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte visited Sudan, Chad and Libya earlier this month.”
Is this diplomacy? I’ve always thought diplomacy was or has become a loose word, a word for inaction and further terror, horror and war.
I belong to the Save the Darfur Coalition mailing list. As much success as they’ve made and as hard as they try, they don’t move the major powers that be — the U.S., Sudan, China, etc. Until the diplomaticos figure things out, a program to expatriate Southern Sudanese to the U.S and possibly other “safe havens”to provide safety and comfort to them is doomed to fail.
To say this is not America’s problems is not true. We have the major head of state of the so-called free world intending to attend the 2008 Chinese Olympics.
The U.S. State Department hasn’t even bothered to declare a boycott against the 2008 U.S. Chinese Olympics because it has deemed its economic and political interests are more important than hundreds of thousands of dead Southern Black Sudanese.
The world at large lacks moral courage. It is spineless and self-centered.
But we no longer really live in a world like that without implicating ourselves in cowardice and lack of moral fiber.
I’ve never felt my vote mattered. The U.S. is a capitalist plutocracy. Probably private and public humanitarian aid are the next best thing.
MICHAEL RAGLAND
Triangle
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Ragland ) on April 10, 2008 at 2:06 am
phdee:
Accept my apologies. I misintepreted the thread getting caught up in it.
Michael Ragland
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on April 08, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Is there oil in Darfur? I thought not.
If you remember we invaded Iraq (oh, after the WMD were not found)to “liberate” the Iraqi people from a ‘tyrant’. Saddam ain’t nothing to the slaughter going on in Africa. We worry about immigrants sending money home to Mexico while our Corporations dump billions and billions into China, sending jobs and our future with it. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush - they all share in the blame.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( phdee ) on April 08, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Mr. Ragland, I did not direct my post toward you at all. Actually, I agree with what you say. I was responding to poter “barnum” who brought up Clinton. I don’t consider your posting biased in any way. If I left that impression, I apologize for it.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on April 08, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I dont think I said clinton was the first to have talks with china. That’s not a bias. People get caught up to much in political sides. Clinton opened the doors wide for trade with china and this has hurt the US deeply, although it’s good for walmart. Bush could have pushed to even the playing feild with proper tariffs but hasn’t. Every president and congress since Reagen have dropped the ball on immigration. american’s need to do better at keeping their eye on the ball vs cheering for a team.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Ragland ) on April 07, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Phdee: I’m describing the present situation; given the limited letters to the editor to 300 words it would not be possible to make my point. Yes, Clinton also coddled the Chinese and U.S. politicians have before but I’m focusing on the present which are realistic and actual. My bias are not showing; President Bush is one if not the worst president in U.S. history. Eight years of U.S. citizens being dumped upon and his morality is non-existent. Thank goodness, this president is on his way out. If you want to call that bias so be it.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( phdee ) on April 07, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Come now Barnum, you know as well as I do that cozing up to china began as far back as the Nixon years, and when old man bush was ambassador. Other politicians have expanded upon it. Clinton just can’t get full blame. Let’s be fair and honest. You’re showing your biases.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on April 07, 2008 at 8:57 am
There is more truth in this article than most people will realize. Millions have died. The US will not boycott china as we are now far to dependant on them. we’ve outsourced far to much of our industry to china thanks to Bill Clinton. As far as the millions that have died in darfur. rowanda etc. this comes back to the discussion of the UN. The US gets criticized for a “go it alone” attitude but the UN is complacent and stagnant of taking any action to resolve any world conflict with force. Diplomacy is great, unless you’re one of the millions slaughtered during decades of talks.
Report Inappropriate Comment