Flip-Flopping on Genocide
The New York Times > International > U.S. Lobbies U.N. on Darfur and International Court
Amazing ... it's one thing for the US to back out of the International Criminal Court. Nevermind that the fears of US military men and women being tried is a non-starter - they're exempt from prosecution. But to add insult to injury, now the administration is seeking to keep prosecution of the Darfur genocide out of the ICC's hands.
Why, you ask?
Seems that not only does the US not want the ICC for themselves, they don't want it for anyone else in the world as well. So it is that legitimate signatories to the Genocide Convention and ICC are now being lobbied to satisfy our own Birch-esque fear of international courts.
And yet ... the US will likely get its way. But not for the reasons of successful lobbying. Instead, they'll get their way because they want to abide by the UN report on Sudanese atrocities. The report is notable in that it does not label them as genocide.
By not doing so, there's no jurisdiction for the ICC. So it is that what is obvious and blatant genocide that took Colin Powell and the rest of the administration months to acknowledge, is now being flip-flopped on.
Simple astounding.
Even more astounding, as the DLC notes, is Condi Rice's answer to Barack Obama in confirmation hearings:
Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama asked her: "Do we have a well-thought-out doctrine we can present to the world [about] where military action is justified and where it is not? Apparently, it is not justified in Sudan, where there is genocide."Rice's response was in a word, evasive. "It's a very interesting question.... You have to look at the mix of tools available to you. Military force should be a last resort." Hardly the clarion call you'd expect from the successor to Colin Powell, who did at least publicly label the Darfur genocide as "genocide."
In fairness there was more pointed questioning on the matter by Russ Feingold to which Condi similarly danced around using the G-word, bemoaning the fact that the administration is laboring to get 3,000+ AU troops into the region while the Sudanese government will only allow 1,000.
'Scuse me? We're taking permission slips from a genocidal regime now?
Looks, there's a lot to decry over everyone else's inactions on matters of genocide like this. Euopean allies have done about as much shuffling and hand-wringing as you'd expect. But in the end, it's just an excuse to replace "Never Again" with "Again, and Again, and Again."
Rice suggested that Bush wanted to "do something" about Sudan when he appointed Sen. Danforth as UN Ambassador. Now, with the strongest advocate headed out the door, one looks around and sees a new Secretary of State who cannot bring herself to use the G-word, no Danforth ... no nothing. Apparently, freedom doesn't quite mean freedom for everyone. And freedom from tyranny has limits. Unfortunately, those limits are the ideological blinders worn by the incoming administration officials.