Darfur: Too far?

What is happening in Darfur - the southern part of Sudan - is that native Black people who happen to be Christians are being murdered by White people who happen to be Arabs. This seems to be part of a centuries old, repeated pattern; i.e., white people murder black people with impunity. But, let us not let Asians off the hook: the Chinese and Japanese are sitting by idly while all this goes on. And, I haven't heard a peep from India, Pakistan or other Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

It seems to me there are two major elements worthy of note in this gory scene. First is that whatever savagery occurs in Africa is either excusable or unimportant. After all, Africa is not part of the "civilized" world from the point of view of the world's major "civilizations." It is not European or Chinese or Japanese or Indian or Polynesian or even Aborigine or Eskimo. It is not 'of' the North or the South or any other recognizable or desirable part of the world. For example, almost everyone, including me, is fascinated by the South Seas and the original Australians. The pogrom against Australian Aborigines by white settlers was stopped by the pressure of world opinion, especially that of Brits and Americans. In addition, the still-prejudiced Australians took a different stance, when the Aborigines were discovered as a money-making tourist industry. Would we not be outraged and impelled to action if the Darfur-Rwanda-etc sort of thing happened in New Zealand, Samoa or Tahiti? Were we not outraged by the Islamic rebels in the Philippines?

Which brings me to the second element of Darfur: Islam. A central problem for our world is the vicious nature of Islamic Jihad and other Islamic doctrines, all of which justify killing those who do not submit to the Truth of Allah. I have no doubt that Jihadist doctrines are indeed one side of Islam, just as Christians seem liable to undertake similar atrocities in the name of their religion. Both Christianity and Islam involve a sense of self-righteousness in the name of Absolute Truth that leads to Jihad and Crusades. Unlike the far more pacifist Buddhist teachings, the religions of the Middle East and Europe are blood thirsty, as demonstrated in their histories. So, I blame the Islamic government of Sudan for the atrocities in the South. There is something wrong with their "civilization," their religion - the same sort of thing we found wrong with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Having mentioned Afghanistan, what better correlation than the most recent episode of intolerance in the case of an Afghani Christian? The Afghan Parliament and Imams still want the death sentence, and disapprove the government's release of Abdul Rahman. They are well justified in their demands by the teaching of the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, which offers only allegiance to Allah or death as the sole alternatives for subjects of Islamic states. But, we have to excuse them, as the ancient Romans and others applied exactly the same standard of obedience: those refusing allegiance to the Roman gods spent their last day in the Coliseum entertaining the faithful.

Despite the Emperor Constantine abolishing the bloody displays in the Coliseum, they went on elsewhere. Christians have only lately - in the last 200 years or so - learned the value of tolerance, after millennia of burnings-at-the-stake, internecine feuds, Inquisitions, and several large scale wars. The Nazi and Stalinist Totalitarian States were the logical extension of the kind of (absolutist) thinking involved in traditional Christianity and now Islamic Jihad.

The most recent problem of Foreign Policy is a newly militant trans-Arabism fueled by doctrines of ancient Islam. Contrary to the common view, this is not an Islamic problem, because  hundreds of millions of Muslims in Indonesia and elsewhere are not involved in Jihad. This is a specific problem in the Middle East, in which the various Arab and Semitic peoples are involved. It is not a new problem: it has gone on for millennia. It amounts to a feud based on multiple claims to land which cannot support the population. Would there be a problem, if there were enough land for all?

All of the foregoing seems an ideal problem for an International, liberal government to solve. That is, the solution has to begin with the United Nations. For starters, I believe the United States should be in the forefront of those ready and willing to bring an end to the genocide in Darfur. But this should not and must not be another Bandit, unilateral, pre-emptive action. It must be a truly international operation. I have no doubt, if the United States were sincere and forthcoming in its efforts, that the genocide in Darfur and elsewhere in Africa would stop, promptly.

Ending the genocide and putting Sudan under direct, international supervision could be an important first step in solving the problems of the Middle East. For example, a similar solution might apply to Iraq. And, if that can be made to work in Iraq, why not Palestine?

The inferno in Darfur is a miniature of major problems elsewhere, problems of racism and intolerance. Americans should pay attention to those suffering by our indifference, because it reveals something about ourselves and our government as well.