Informed Speculation

I’ve written before of the phony-baloney outrage industry that much of the press, and almost all blogs, this one included, thrive on (while I still delight in the foibles of my political opponents, I try to avoid the ‘CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT THOSE LOONEY LIBS ARE UP TO NOW?’ type posts). Why, we can’t believe that Tom Cruise would mock psychiatry, or that Chris Matthews would notice when Osama bin Laden releases a tape with Michael Moore-ish talking points, or that President Bush would (God forbid) try to listen in when Americans speak to terrorists (okay, I threw in a little red meat there with that last one to make sure you were paying attention).

That’s fine, as far as it goes; there appears to be some basic human impulse to derive a perverse sort of pleasure from being offended by what basically amounts to small beans. The amusement quickly begins to take on a sour taste, however, when one considers the real, undeniably evil, outrages occurring in plain view. Consider the following from Nicholas Kristof:

During the Holocaust, the world looked the other way. Allied leaders turned down repeated pleas to bomb the Nazi extermination camps or the rail lines leading to them, and the slaughter attracted little attention. My newspaper, The New York Times, provided meticulous coverage of World War II, but of 24,000 front-page stories published in that period only six referred on page one directly to the Nazi assault on the Jewish population of Europe. Only afterward did many people mourn the death of Anne Frank, construct Holocaust museums, and vow: Never Again.

The same paralysis occurred as Rwandans were being slaughtered in 1994. Officials from Europe to the US to the UN headquarters all responded by temporizing and then, at most, by holding meetings. The only thing President Clinton did for Rwandan genocide victims was issue a magnificent apology after they were dead.

Much the same has been true of the Western response to the Armenian genocide of 1915, the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, and the Bosnian massacres of the 1990s. In each case, we have wrung our hands afterward and offered the lame excuse that it all happened too fast, or that we didn’t fully comprehend the carnage when it was still under way.

And now the same tragedy is unfolding in Darfur, but this time we don’t even have any sort of excuse. In Darfur genocide is taking place in slow motion, and there is vast documentary proof of the atrocities. Some of the evidence can be seen in the photo reproduced with this essay, which was leaked from an African Union archive containing thousands of other such photos. And now, the latest proof comes in the form of two new books that tell the sorry tale of Darfur: it’s appalling that the publishing industry manages to respond more quickly to genocide than the UN and world leaders do.

In my years as a journalist, I thought I had seen a full kaleidoscope of horrors, from babies dying of malaria to Chinese troops shooting students to Indonesian mobs beheading people. But nothing prepared me for Darfur, where systematic murder, rape, and mutilation are taking place on a vast scale, based simply on the tribe of the victim. What I saw reminded me why people say that genocide is the worst evil of which human beings are capable.

How much ink has been wasted on the Chris Matthews story? How much on, God forbid, Oprah Winfrey and James Frey? And how precious little on this story…

And outrage, in this case, may be just what the doctor ordered:

The most obvious response to genocide—strong and widely broadcast expressions of outrage—would also be one of the most effective. Sudan’s leaders are not Taliban-style extremists. They are ruthless opportunists, and they adopted a strategy of genocide because it seemed to be the simplest method available. If the US and the UN raise the cost of genocide, they will adopt an alternative response, such as negotiating a peace settlement. Indeed, whenever the international community has mustered some outrage about Darfur, then the level of killings and rapes subsides.

But outrage at genocide is tragically difficult to sustain. There are only a few groups that are trying to do so: university students who have led the anti-genocide campaign and formed groups like the Genocide Intervention Network; Jewish humanitarian organizations, for whom the word “genocide” has intense meaning; the Smith College professor Eric Reeves, who has helped lead the campaign to protest the genocide; some US churches; and aid workers who daily brave the dangers of Dar-fur (like the one who chronicles her experiences in the blog “Sleepless in Sudan”[2] ). Some organizations, like Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group, have also produced a series of excellent reports on Darfur—underscoring that this time the nations of the world know exactly what they are turning away from and cannot claim ignorance.

It’s no good going through life carrying the weight of the world on your shoulders; we should all eat, drink, and be merry, and thank God that we have the opportunity…but it never hurts to be reminded of just how cruel the world can be…and it doesn’t hurt to remind the decision-makers, either. You can find out how to contact your Congressional representative here, your senator here, and your president here…five minutes time, if you please…just tell them, if you have the mind, that you think a little more light and heat from the bully pulpit might be in order…

End sermon, and back to our regularly scheduled programming…

UPDATE 4:23 p.m.: Thanks to Academic Elephant for pointing me to this oh-so-relevant excellent news:

The United States and Britain have decided to get the ball rolling on sending U.N. peacekeepers to Sudan’s violent Darfur region as pressure mounts from advocacy groups demanding action, Security Council envoys said on Wednesday.

While U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur are “now inevitable,” the steps to integrate the African Union force in Darfur with U.N. troops would take at least six months.

The United States and Britain want the 15-member Security Council to issue a statement next week calling for contingency plans from the United Nations for peacekeepers, a diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Jean-Marie Guehenno, the undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, has already started planning but needs a firm decision from the 15-member council before recruiting any troops. A U.S.-British statement, if approved, is the first step towards a U.N. operation…

Quicker timeline, please…