Pas på - MEGALANGT INDLÆG !!!
Nu har jeg fulgt lidt med i debatten her i gruppen (altså, den smule debat
renset for mudder osv) .. og undrer mig over, at der er gået SÅ megen energi
på diskussioner om "legaliteten" af Iraq-krigen. Det er som om at fokus
bliver sat på papirer eller "folkeretten" fremfor at Saddam var et monster,
og det er et vidunder at han blev fjernet.
Spørgsmål : Hvor meget skal man fortabe sig i meningsløse diskussioner,
floskler, "folkeretter" osv, mens der er mennesker som dræbes ?
De argumenter som er fløjet frem og tilbage var bl.a. WMD's - (påstande om
deres tilstedeværelse eller mangel på samme). TIl det vil jeg blot sige - om
jeg bliver slået ihjel af en kniv , en AK-47 eller en atombombe så e,r
resultatet, i hvertfald for mig, ganske det samme. WMD's har da vel nogle
foilk på samvittigheden (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Halabja) ... men for ofrene er
årsagen vel ret ligegyldig. Et morderisk regime kan sagtens kalre sig med
knive og machetter (bare se Rwanda), men det hidser ikke nogen op i samme
grad tilsyneladende. Siden 2'en er der vel røget et par hundrede millioner
takket være ganske konventionelle våben - skal man så acceptere dét som
status-quo ?
Tilbage til "legaliteten" - det synes at herske en opfattelse blandt mange
at FN-godkendt gør alt legalt, mens en manglende FN-godkendelse gør alt
illegalt. Hallo - igen, en død man er en død mand, med eller uden FN's
godkendelse. FN er en talkshop som i dens egen natur har indbygget så mange
begrænsninger at man gang på gang begrænser sig til den laveste
fællesnævner. Da Rwanda stod på, undgik man omhyggeligt ordet "genocide",
for det ville have medført en forpligtelse til at tage aktion, og ingen gad
det, da det blot var en million halenegere so udryddede hinanden, og ikke
sad på nogen olje. Da Srebrenica faldt, og 10000 mænd/drenge blev udryddet,
ja, så var man ked af det - en stor trøst jo. For nogle år tilbage blev
Libyen valgt til formand for FN's Menneskerettighedskommission. Ja -
Libyen - en velkendt forkæmper for menneskerettigheder !!!!
For øjeblikket har vi bl..a. Darfur - og jo, de har olje, men siden US havde
Sudan på sin terroristslyngelstatliste i mange år, så kan de ikke forvente
olje or er derfor ret ligeglade. Sudaneserne sælger olje til Kina, som
derfor hindrer enhver aktion i Sikkerhedsrådet. Vær så god - folkeretten !
YUCK !
Hvad Mugabe bedriver i Zimbabwe - well, det er da hans land , og vi andre
skal da ikke blande os. Det er jo igen "blot" nogle negre som sulter
selvforskyldt, og jo færre af dem des bedre. Eller hvad ?
Til illustration af Darfur her en ganske sigende artiken fra New York TImes
(erstat "Darfur" med hvilket som helst land i bekneb) Bare fordi den er 1 år
gammel, gør det den desværre ikke mindre aktuel. :
Another Triumph for the U.N.
September 25, 2004
By DAVID BROOKS
And so we went the multilateral route.
Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty
old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon,
empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be
so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially
cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a
million editorialists nod in sage approval.
And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went
to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and
platitudes spread like biarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that
the global community was whirring into action.
Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.
We did everything basically right. The president was involved, the secretary
of state was bold and clearheaded, the U.N. ambassador was eloquent, and the
Congress was united. And, following the strictures of international law, we
had the debate that, of course, is going to be the top priority while planes
are bombing villages.
We had a discussion over whether the extermination of human beings in this
instance is sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of
genocide. For if it is, then the "competent organs of the United Nations"
may be called in to take appropriate action, and you know how fearsome the
competent organs may be when they may indeed be called.
The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the
Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and
hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many
corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while
the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may
not rise to the level of genocide.
For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.
But the multilateral process moved along in its dignified way. The U.N.
general secretary was making preparations to set up a commission.
Preliminary U.N. resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told
they should stop - often in frosty tones. The world community - well skilled
in the art of expressing disapproval, having expressed fusillades of
disapproval over Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Iraq, etc. - expressed its
disapproval. And, meanwhile, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in
Darfur.
There was even some talk of sending U.S. troops to stop the violence, which,
of course, would have been a brutal act of oil-greedy unilateralist
empire-building, and would have been protested by a million lovers of peace
in the streets. Instead, the U.S. proposed a resolution threatening
sanctions on Sudan, which began another round of communiqui-issuing.
The Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions would not
be in the interests of humanity. The Chinese, whose oil companies have a
significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto. And so began the great
watering-down. Finally, a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution
threatening to "consider" sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at
no time soon.
The Security Council debate had all the decorous dullness you'd expect. The
Algerian delegate had "profound oncern."
The Russian delegate pronounced the situation "complex." The Sudanese
government was praised because the massacres are proceeding more slowly. The
air was filled with nuanced obfuscations, technocratic jargon and the amoral
blandness of multilateral deliberation.
The resolution passed, and it was a good day for alliance-nurturing and
burden-sharing - for the burden of doing nothing was shared equally by all.
And we are by now used to the pattern. Every time there is an ongoing
atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages:
(1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4)
pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let
this happen again.
The "never again" always comes. But still, we have all agreed, this sad
cycle is better than having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go
in "unilaterally" and do something. That would lack legitimacy! Strain
alliances!
Menace international law! Threaten the multilateral ideal!
It's a pity about the poor dead people in Darfur. Their numbers are still
rising, at 6,000 to 10,000 a month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/opinion/25brooks.html?ex=1097111219&ei=1&en=d3f98e41e1219191