I take the liberty of reprinting in full an editorial that will appear tomorrow in various papers, by Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post. This version is thanks to the Witchita Eagle (Kansas, USA). Reprinting this is an instance of "fair use" because the question the editorial raises is so important to our national and international debate. The guestion, by the way, is "Why are Sudan and the issues it raises not central to US national debate in this political season?
Posted on Thu, Sep. 09, 2004
Sudan mostly ignored at political conventionsBY FRED HIATT
The Washington Post
Imagine that genocide were taking place -- thousands of children dying, women raped, men mowed down in groups -- just as the American political parties held their quadrennial conventions. Surely it would be a major subject of conversation.No? No. Of course not. We all know that genocide is taking place, in the Darfur region of western Sudan, and you did not hear it discussed during eight nights of rousing oratory at two conventions.
Well, but be fair, you say; party conventions are hardly the place or time to talk about such depressing matters. Behind the scenes, the foreign policy mandarins of each party must have been consumed by the issue. Right?
No again. In Boston and New York City, the Council on Foreign Relations held panel discussions on the central issues of the next four years. Panelists discussed Iraq, terrorism, trade deficits, China, Korea, the Voice of America, European public opinion, port security... but not Darfur. A million people may die, tens of thousands already have, and -- nothing.
How can this be? One explanation would be that Americans just don't care all that much. The victims of Darfur are poor, black and far away. The issues are hard to understand. U.S. security is not at stake.
A more charitable explanation would be that people care but that stopping genocide is not easy. Villages are being destroyed across an area the size of Texas. Sudan's government opposes and frustrates outside intervention. United Nations Security Council members such as China oppose anything that affronts Sudan's sovereignty.
But Darfur should be debated precisely because it raises difficult questions -- and because those questions aren't so different from the challenges that were posed by Iraq and Kosovo and that may arise again in many other spots.
When is it legitimate to infringe on a nation's sovereignty to ensure global security or rescue an imperiled population? Who should perform those jobs? What if the United Nations says no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Hiatt writes for The Washington Post.
Comments