Monday, May 31, 2004
Sudanese peasants will be naming their sons "George Bush" because he scored a humanitarian victory this week that could be a momentous event around the globe — although almost nobody noticed. It was Bush administration diplomacy that led to an accord to end a 20-year civil war between Sudan's north and south after two million deaths.
Demographers at the U.S. Agency for International Development estimate that at best, "only" 100,000 people will die in Darfur this year of malnutrition and disease. If things go badly, half a million will die.
This is not a natural famine, but a deliberate effort to eliminate three African tribes in Darfur so Arabs can take their land. The Genocide Convention defines such behavior as genocide, and it obliges nations to act to stop it. That is why nobody in the West wants to talk about Darfur — because of a fear that focusing on the horror will lead to a deployment in Sudan.
Yet while Mr. Bush has done far too little, he has at least issued a written statement, sent aides to speak forcefully at the U.N. and raised the matter with Sudan's leaders. That's more than the Europeans or the U.N. has done. Where are Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac? Where are African leaders, like Nelson Mandela? Why isn't John Kerry speaking out forcefully? And why are ordinary Americans silent?
Check out the article. If the mainstream media refuses to do any in depth reporting on anything but Iraqi prisoner treatment, maybe the rest of us can get the word out.
Update: Gary Farber and his big stick just whacked me upside the head. In my ranting against the media (which I am wont to do lately, sometimes based on more than conjecture) I ignored the NY Times OpEd and the NYT syndicated news service. They have provided some coverage on the Sudan story. Furthermore, my linking talents are minimal at best. Here is a specific link to Gary's post, and here is a specific link to the article mentioned above.
I am learning. Slowly. See Gary, I told you there was no reason to fear me stealing your readership! Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings...
When did Nicholas Kristoff, the New York Times OpEd page, and the NYT syndicated news service become non-mainstream, exactly?
Trivial point is that you didn't link to my post, nor to the article, but to my blog in general. This is the specific post. This is the article in the noted non-mainstream news source. (I neglected to include the further compliment to George Bush in the first line.) HTH!
At risk of being a nag here, and possibly prattling, I feel a need, for the sake of coherency, to point out that your updated correction still reads terribly oddly.
The story was written by Nicholas Kristoff, editorial columnist of the New York Times. (And the Times also syndicates those columns to hundreds of newspapers around the country, and possibly as many as thousands around the world.)
So to say "they provided some coverage" is still very misleading and inaccurate. They created the column which you are praising and seeking to (and ultimately have) link(ed) to.
Which is what makes claiming that the "mainstream media" is "not reporting certain aspects of this story" so deeply, um, wrong. To put it plainly, though I hope not impolitely.
I'm rather unclear; since you are obviously concerned that "the mainstream media" typically engage in "not reporting certain aspects" of stories you are concerned about, might I ask if you actually read the daily, say, NY Times and Washington Post to determine this factually for yourself?
Meanwhile, I posted lots of other stuff so far today, incidentally.
However, it appears that it's possible that, as usual, I didn't get across that my suggestions about "too many new blogs; stop it!" Were A Joke. Attempted joke, anyway, though I'd swear that some people listening laughed. As I said in that blogger bash report, this happens to me all the time.