Where are those voices?

Where are those voices?
In response to “Rape and Murder”, Jeff asks a good question (Read full content below in border.): “Where was the world when all the past genocides took place?” In the current African genocide, over 200,000 (by some estimates 380,000) have been killed and as many as two million left homeless in Darfur, and now the conflict spills into Chad. It does not have to be, if the world’s leadership hears enough condemning voices. Where are those voices? Aside from those such as Eric Reeves, a Darfur genocide scholar, and the courageous Nicholas Kristof of NYT and Ann Curry of NBC (Ann’s genocide reported on Chad aired on Today Show, NBC this week.), it’s up to you and me.
We can’t have an excuse, for not being informed about genocide in this age of seamless communication, and because it’s so simple and convenient to communicate to the world’s leadership “our” moral obligation. It could not be that we just don’t care! If you haven’t already, you can register your moral support for president Bush by sending a card with any comments you would like to add: Just click on http://www.millionvoicesfordarfur.org/. In addition you may find other ways to help by going to this site: http://www.genocideintervention.net/.
I have included below Eric Reeves’ report in The New Republic on March 8th, 2006, which gave an update on the current status of genocide deterrent efforts, including the problem with getting NATO involved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was the world when word got out about the pogroms of Russian minorities, especially Jews, went unabated during the 19th and early 20th century? Massacres in the Balkans? The de-humanization, internment and near eradication of European jewery by the Nazis? The thousands, perhaps millions, of mankind during the mass purges during much of the Soviet and ChiCom era? The killing fields of Cambodia and Vietnam? The bloodbath of Yugoslavia? The mass starvation and murder across the African continent by facist regimes? The iron fist of the Saddam Hussain against the Kurds? The brutality of illicit drug cartels in Central and South America.
Truth is this: Men will choose to ignore the storm of bloodshed swirling about them until it smashes them in the face. It is not enough to leave it to the corrupt U.N., just as it was a useless exercise in polemics for the late League of Nations. Vigilance against those that promote evil and the destruction of others to justify power. As always, it takes the strong to defeat those who utilize brute force to obtain and maintain power. Too bad that those of other nations have chosen to ignore this facet of human history. Like Chamberlain, those that vacillate would prefer to turn away and simply proclaim "... we have achieved peace in our time". Think about it. Jeff Stern Selma, NC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSH, NATO, AND DARFUR.
Political Persuasionby Eric Reeves Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 03.08.06
Last week, TNR's editors applauded President Bush for "starting to get serious about Darfur." And, briefly, it seems he did. In February, the United States used its month as chair of the Security Council to advocate for the United Nations to take over security responsibilities in Darfur from the badly undermanned African Union. Bush spoke of "NATO stewardship" of a peacekeeping mission and of doubling the number of troops on the ground. And he explained our moral obligation to bring genocide perpetrators to justice, saying, "There has to be a consequence for people abusing their fellow citizens." It wasn't just Bush who seemed to renew his interest in Darfur recently: Last week the Senate passed a resolution with bipartisan sponsorship urging the administration to "take steps immediately to help improve the security situation in Darfur," including the possible deployment of NATO troops.
But Monday brought sobering news from Europe, where NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer ruled out the possibility of sending NATO troops to Darfur. NATO's role, he said, should be "in the enabling sphere" and should not involve "the boots of troops on the ground." In truth, even before these remarks, it was clear that NATO was going to balk at sending forces to Darfur. After Bush's remarks, a NATO diplomat in Brussels said, "While there is a willingness on the part of NATO to do more in terms of airlift, to do anything more would be extremely difficult because a number of nations oppose any deeper involvement than that."
This is the central problem. Even if the United Nations agrees to relieve the African Union in Darfur, there is no reserve of U.N. peacekeepers from which to draw. Assembling a U.N. force will therefore take a good deal of time; and, meanwhile, the genocide will continue. Insecurity is on the rise throughout Darfur; humanitarian reach is contracting; and violent attacks continue to displace civilians. If security deteriorates to the point where humanitarian workers cannot stay in Darfur and continue to serve refugees, then disease and malnutrition will take over--and finish the genocidal work that the Sudanese government began. That is where NATO could have helped: by deploying troops now as an interim step until the United Nations is ready to send peacekeepers of its own.
According to the NATO diplomat, "to get a significant number of NATO nations involved would take a lot of persuading." Persuading, then, is what we will have to do. Bush's willingness to undertake such persuasion will serve as the ultimate test of whether his recent rhetoric on Darfur reflected genuine commitment or political expedience. As TNR argued last week, convincing NATO leaders to send troops will mean more than merely lobbying. It will mean leading by example: pledging that U.S. forces will participate if NATO deploys to Darfur. As the Senate resolution says, "[A]ll members of the international community must participate in efforts to stop genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur." That includes us.
Unfortunately, the administration's signals so far have not been encouraging. Almost as soon Bush had uttered his mid-February statement on Darfur, a Pentagon spokesman cautioned that it was "premature to speculate" on the involvement of U.S. troops. This comment tracked closely with what a State Department spokesman said following a meeting between Bush and Kofi Annan: that it's "premature to speculate on what the U.S. contribution might be." For the people of Darfur, of course, a U.S. commitment to end the genocide wouldn't be premature; it would be long overdue.
As violence has spilled over into neighboring Chad, the Khartoum regime is lobbying furiously to block the United Nations or NATO from sending troops to its country. It has even gone so far as to threaten any U.N. force with attacks by Al Qaeda. This raises the possibility that the Sudanese government will create a non-permissive environment for international troops. Surely NATO forces would need to be used under such a scenario.
The choice before the United States and Europe is whether to allow a regime of genocidaries to determine the nature and timing of any peacemaking force that deploys to Darfur. If this force has inadequate resources or a compromised mandate, or arrives too late, the consequences will be measured in lives lost. So, President Bush: Let the persuasion begin.
Eric Reeves is a professor of English Language and Literature at Smith College and has written extensively on Sudan.