You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa: Horn
The N.Y. Times on unilateral U.S. action: Sudan yes, Iraq no
2004-07-11
Tell it Mayor Koch!
By Ed Koch
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, July 9th, 2004

The New York Times editorial page has repeatedly castigated President Bush for his willingness to go to war with Iraq because he continues to believe, as I do, that Iraq failed to account for weapons of mass destruction; that Iraq was an imminent threat to its neighbors and a foreseeable danger to the U.S.; that Saddam Hussein was a vicious despot who had tortured and murdered his own people and his neighbors using poison gas, among other terrible crimes; and that the removal of such a dangerous and oppressive tyrant would promote positive change in the entire region. The New York Times did not find any of these reasons sufficient for the U.S., Great Britain, and the coalition forces to wage war against Iraq without being authorized to do so by the U.N. So it was a surprise when The Times published an editorial on July 3, advocating unilateral action to relieve the human rights catastrophe in Sudan. Action against the Sudanese government is certainly warranted, but is it more warranted than the action we have taken in Iraq? Relevant excerpts from The Times editorial follow and are well worth reading:
"The growing disaster in the Darfur region of Sudan, which may have already killed as many people as have died in the fighting in Iraq over the last year and a quarter, demands that Secretary of State Colin Powell and the U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan, go beyond the kind of welcome but government-manipulated visits we saw this week. Without tough and immediate actions by Washington and the U.N. Security Council, a half-million people or more could die before the end of the year from Sudanese government-sponsored attacks and the starvation and disease that inevitably follow."
It went on,
"Any illusion that Sudan's leaders are now prepared to act responsibly without being compelled to do so should have been dispelled by their cruel and cynical behavior during the Powell and Annan visits.

"The Bush administration has been far too timid in proposing punitive sanctions only for Janjaweed leaders. That remains the main thrust of a Security Council resolution that Washington is circulating. It would be much more effective to put direct pressure on the leaders of Sudan's government, who can shut down the attacks quickly.

"The Security Council remains divided between the Sudanese government's critics and apologists and has been unwilling to take strong action.

"If the Security Council still refuses to act, the United States, the European Union and the African countries that assert a claim to continental leadership, like Nigeria and South Africa, should work together to convince Sudan's leaders that their government will become a pariah if it does not stop what looks increasingly like genocide in Darfur."
If those measures do not accomplish the goal of protecting by some estimates one million people from genocide and thousands from enslavement, is there any doubt that The Times would endorse unilateral military action by the U.S.? I would.
Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
(An honest Mayor of our city, and a good man, Ed Koch)

I'm not surprised. The NYT editorial board thinks that Bush isn't going to send troops to Sudan. It's an election year and the regular army divisions are resting and re-equipping in anticipation of the next fight, probably with Iran. Sudan at this point would be a distraction. If Bush were to actually say, "Yeah, let's do it!" and send the 101st and the 82nd to kill all the janjaweed and chase Bashir and Turabi and their minions out of the country, the Times would be the first ones to holler about the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents. The "Arab" ethnic cleansers would suddenly turn black and it'd be a "racist war." And of course Sudan does have all that oil, so it'd be all about that. I put the Times position down to posturing.
Posted by:Mark Espinola

#3  I would like the NYT to comment on the differences between Iraq and Sudan that justify a studious discretion in the case of the former but immediate intervention in the latter. I want to see just how intellectually dishonest they can be.
Posted by: Billy Hank   2004-07-11 1:27:02 PM  

#2  I think if we armed and trained the Fuhr to fight the Arabs and gave them minimal air cover, the Arabs would be beaten badly and quickly.

Of course, the problem with this is the Arab countries would scream and the rest of the Islamic world would also be against it. The black African world would be publically neutral even if privately positive and the Euros would be tut tut.

The NY Times would condemn it of course.
Posted by: mhw   2004-07-11 11:16:11 AM  

#1  Yes well the French vetoed any action in Suadan while they extract oil. Did the NYT comment on this?
By the way Silent Running has a good post on French unilateral behaviour


Down here "French kiss" means something different.

It is worth a read for anyone too young to remember how the French ran rough shod over New Zealand's national integrity in their quest to explode as many nuclear charges in the Pacific.
Maybe it will open some eyes?
It would be nice if the Hypocritcoq came home to roost.

Can anyone get Kerry's "position" on this? When it comes to oil the French get very slippery!
Posted by: Cynic   2004-07-11 8:22:47 AM  

00:00