The self-styled "world community"--a combine of
supercilious diplomats, self-righteous NGOs, and unrealistic journalists--has
for years been lethargically searching for a solution to the problem of
genocide in Darfur. And now this alliance of
the high-minded has been let off the hook. The prosecutor at the international court in The
Hague is seeking an indictment of the president of Sudan.
Now, such an indictment is well-deserved. But it is not justice, as Nuremberg was
justice. Moreover, the real powers on
the African continent (the Arab states to the north and post-apartheid South Africa)
are against this move. How can you
indict Omar Al Bashir without the approval of Qadhafi?
In any case, true justice is not a long and long-delayed
proceeding against one person who has been the political front for the orgy of
murder. I prefer in such cases the quick dispatch of Mussolini to his father in
heaven. The end of the Sudanese genocide requires force and nothing less than
force. But, actually, not all that much force. And 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. America
would not be alone: I have once or twice before listed those democratic
countries that would join us in the effort.
Which is just what Nicholas Kristof is against. In his last
column, he latches
on to The Hague
proceedings as a substitute for practical action, writing "[W]e should be
applauding. The prosecution for genocide is a historic step that also creates
an opportunity in Sudan." But this substitute will not stop the
killing. Only arms, Western arms, and Western personnel (plus perhaps Japanese
and South Koreans) can do that. And that
is taboo to Kristof. What are not taboo for Kristof are moral slights at Israel, even in
this piece in which it has no place whatever.
In an editorial a few days ago, The Wall Street Journal explains why
the international court is a particularly obtuse way of dealing with genocide: "[T]he
indictment is of a piece with the same toothless moral posturing that has
already prolonged Darfur's misery for more than four years." Please read
it.