Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Monday, January 31, 2005

    Sudan crisis, where are the right?

    It is interesting when confronted by rabid right wing extremists (The sort who most ardently advocate the type of war crimes carried out in their name in Iraq) who say that Saddam Hussein had to be removed in the interests of his people, because of terrible human rights abuses. They also often claim the moral high ground by alleging that the left would approve of Husseins continued abuses. However, this is simply untrue. If you look at the facts, right wing regimes, such as Thatchers, Reagans and Bush I's allied themselves to Saddam Husseins regime, when he was at that time assisting against our leaders "enemy" at the time, Iran. When these abuses were being carried out human rights organisations (which generally lean to the left, not to the right) called on our "civilised societies" leaders to stop allying themselves to people such as Hussein, as supplying him with the means to abuse his own people made our leaders part of the crimes carried out. However, the right continued to ignore these warnings until it became apparent to them that it would be in their interests to install a new regime in Iraq. Now we have a crisis in Sudan. Terrible crimes have been committed, and continue to be committed there, and last night British diplomats were trying to get the Sudanese government to allow Save the Children and Oxfam chiefs back into the country. Now, let's have a look where the right stand on the Sudan issue. Well, the Bush regime approved of the watering down of the UN resolution on Sudan approved just a few weeks ago. They even quite surprisingly dropped demands for a halt to human rights abuses carried out there. It seems that wherever you look in the world, whether in latin America, the middle east, or Africa the right wing employ double standards on human rights. Yes, they may claim to act in the interests of human rights, but only when it suits their political idealogies.

    9 Comments:

    At 1/31/2005 08:01:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Move along, your beloved UN says there's no genocide there which means they don't have to take any action. Big effing surprise.

     
    At 1/31/2005 08:21:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Well, however you label it, there have been some terrible acts carried out in Sudan.

    And what makes you think it's "my beloved UN"? Rather a big assumption wouldn't you say?

     
    At 1/31/2005 11:43:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    When they are killing the poor black people in their poor homes, it is not a genocide. It follows the same principles of Racism. When does it have to become a genocide? When all the guns are sold to the government of Sudan? When all the black people have their land taken? when the number of the dead is in millions? or when there are no more people left to be killed? Just as it was in Rwanda, it could also be in Darfur. Now we are looking at it but in Ten years, some one will try to apologize for inaction. That apology will not be accepted unless it is done now.

     
    At 2/01/2005 01:38:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Of course it is a big assumption, Voice. That's all non-sequitur boy is capable of.

    With 70,000 killed and 2 million forced out of their homes, I'd be very tempted to call it genocide (the UN didn't) in the same way I was very tempted to call Jenin a massacre (the UN didn't - I have to settle for calling it a bloodbath). Which brings us to Voice's unanswered question, "where is the rabid right?" Where are the Clear Channel stadium rallies in favour of war in Sudan like there were for Iraq? Well, they have yet to be commanded by Gen. B. O'Reilly or Gen. R. Limbaugh, so we can't expect much from them at this point.

     
    At 2/01/2005 01:40:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    One more thing, please tell Bush to stop giving millions of dollars of military aid and training to Islam Karimov's regime. They boil people to death.

     
    At 2/01/2005 05:23:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    You are totally correct in your statement about how Sudan is being treated. However, it is not only the 'right'. It is also the left. They have done nothing and said nothing about the genocide. The problem in Sudan is a problem that nobody anywhere in the world wants to deal with, irrespective of political party.

    But, nevertheless, great site and good writing on Sudan. I hope to see more like it, but with a more balanced approach. Cheers! SEPNet.org editor, JS.

     
    At 2/01/2005 08:57:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Indeed, when action is actually needed on something our leaders are nowhere to be seen, war mongering against nations which pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to our so called "civlised societies".

     
    At 2/01/2005 08:58:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Yes, I would also be tempted to label it genocide also, there have been many genocides around the world, many ignored at the time they have happened.

     
    At 2/01/2005 09:01:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    To some extent you are probably correct, the problem in Sudan, as it has been with many other nations is that while some have been assisting the Sudanese government, others have been assisting the "rebels". I've always said supplying arms to these conflict areas doesn't help matters, and it really has to stop.

     

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home