TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
18.07.2008
Sudan's Tribal Leaders Go It Alone

As you may have noted from my Darfur Spine this morning, I am not optimistic about the lame efforts being made by international institutions to end or even curb the genocide.  Neither are the traditional leaders of the region.  In the Washington Post, Stephanie McCrummen reported that tribal leaders--"sheiks and sultans, umdas and elders, intellectuals, businessmen and spiritual gurus"--are trying on their own to stop the bloodletting.  The nation-state has only magnified the inhumanity of the Arab war on Africans, one reason being, of course, that Sudan is not a nation and is barely a state.

Posted: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:36 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ndmackenzie said:

Martin Peretz writes of the "Arab war on Africans." The summary of the application for an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan disagrees:

-- AL BASHIR set out to quell those movements through armed force and, over the years, also employed a policy of exploiting real or perceived grievances between the different tribes struggling to prosper in the difficult Darfur environment. He promoted the idea of a polarization between tribes aligned with the Government, whom he labeled “Arabs”, and the three groups he perceived as the main threats, whom he labeled “Zurgas” or “Africans”. The image is only one of many devices used by AL BASHIR to disguise his crimes. Both victims and perpetrators are “Africans” and speak “Arabic”.

www.icc-cpi.int/.../ICC-OTP-Summary-20081704-ENG.pdf

July 18, 2008 8:59 PM

lymon1 said:

Marty, if you even pretended to mean what you write I'd be impressive.  But no, just more genocide pimping to help your anti-UN/anti-Arab agenda.  Let's consider this earlier post you refer to:

>>if Barack Obama and John McCain were to jointly appeal to President Bush for a deployment of force such force would be deployed. The combination of Obama and McCain would be irresistible, and it would be morally exemplary: the first action by the West to stop the killing of African blacks.<<

But they haven't, have they?  In fact, just the reverse:  Has anyone been more invisible on Darfur than McCain?  Obama ran away from the issue that cold day in Springfield, IL when he announced his candidacy -- he was even outdone by Hillary Clinton during the primaries (dithering for a week before endorsing the tiny symbolic Olympics protest proposed by Nancy Pelosi).  His call for unilateral force at the 2005 D.C. rally for Darfur was replaced by comments that genocide wasn't the criteria for U.S. force in Iraq and a new love for the power of the AU.  

What would you think of a Jewish senator who acted this way in 1938 for the sake of his Presidential ambitions?  And any reason to think John McCain is different on Darfur than FDR was on going after the German death camps late in the war?    

It's clear that genocide isn't your litmus test for the Presidency -- Israel is.  McCain could make the call you ask for and it wouldn't change your vote.  But if Obama did the same but then did the same windsock on Israel like he did on public campaign financing or FISA, you'd turn his back on him in an instant.  

July 20, 2008 8:54 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.