First draft Fantasy Speech for Pres. Bush on Sudan
Ladies and Gentlemen: The world is slowly getting better, but for every two steps of progress, it seems there is one step back. In the last three years, there have been two terrible regimes, two regimes full of Human Rights abuses, that have been changed by military force. Afghanistan and Iraq. The world is a better place for these changes. But another regime has gotten worse, has become more inhumane to its people, has been killing hundreds, thousands, of its own citizens.
In Sudan, today, there is a regime which is carrying out a genocide. There are thousands of Black Muslims who are being killed or raped and being turned into refugees by a radical Arab militia which is supported by the Sudanese government – state sponsored internal terrorism. The regime in Sudan must change its behavior. They must support human rights, they must allow aid workers in to all areas. They must allow those who want to supply humanitarian aid to do so, and allow their own citizens to return to their homes, or where their homes were destroyed by the Janjaweed.
The US Congress has, courageously and truthfully, called the Sudanese gov’t actions by the right term, Genocide. Only 10 years ago, under the previous president, there was a genocide in Rwanda – but the Democratic Party President of the time refused to call it genocide. So thousands of Tutsis were killed, hundreds of thousands of Black Africans were murdered. Few of the Hutu killers have been punished. Naturally, years after the worst of the murders had stopped, the Democratic Party President gave a fine apology. He apologized for not acting. He apologized for not calling it genocide. He apologized, and apologized, and apologized; and it was very convincing, but it was also too late. Some 700 000 humans had already been murdered.
Why didn’t the Democrats call Rwanda a genocide? Because the United States of America has pledged to take action to stop genocide. We have decided that a nation that is allowing genocide on its territory has forfeited its right to national sovereignty; such a nation doesn’t deserve international respect, nor recognition. Action must be taken by the international community against genocide. Or, even if other nations accept it, the United States treaty signature says we will attempt to stop it, we will take action. The problem of taking action is very acute in a democracy. Human beings are not perfect, and therefore any military action that is actually taken involves the risk of the military results not being perfect. In military actions, people die. This is a sad but true, and inevitable reality. Military people, and local fighters, and fighters dressed like civilians, and even innocent civilians are killed. Killing people is hell. War is hell. Perhaps the previous President did not want to take action, did not want to go to war in Rwanda, because he knew such action would mean some innocent people would die. The US would almost certainly have killed some innocents, had they taken action. So in 1994, the USA did not take action, and the US military did not kill any innocents in Rwanda, and there are no pictures of poor Tutsi boys in hospitals because of US action.
But does US inaction mean the US is free from responsibility? I ask you, was it good that America did not fight during the Rwanda genocide. Would Republicans have complained about the deaths, US and civilian, and also the monetary costs, if we had called it genocide and used force to stop it? Yes, I’m sure many would – maybe even me. No country in the world can be the world’s policeman, and enforce human rights throughout the world, against the wishes of all the abusive governments. In fact, when President Clinton did use US force to save Muslims in Bosnia, without a UN resolution, there were partisan criticisms by Republicans. Today I accept the past need for US force to stop genocide in Europe, since the Europeans were unable, or unwilling, to stop genocide. Still, in the 2000 election I argued against US military involvement as the world’s policeman. Because it does cost so much, in money, in American lives, and even in the lives of the people being freed. And 9/11 changed that.
But there is both a real cost, and a perceived cost. I’m sure you all agree that killing 2 000 000 is far worse than killing 26. Not just worse, not just far worse, but so far worse that it’s almost impossible to actually compare the Killing Fields of Cambodia, where communists as policy murdered some 2 000 000, with the 26 or so Iraqi prisoners who have died while in US custody. There is no comparison between the stellar behavior of the US military in Iraq, and the non-action in Rwanda allowing some 7-800 000 to die.
And yet the US press writes article after article about the failures in Iraq. The failure to win a war without death, without killing, without cost. The failure to be perfect. What standard does the NY Times use, or the LA Times? Do they compare deaths in Iraq with those in Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Afghanistan, or even in Vietnam? Do they make any real comparisons? Or do they write as if perfection is not only possible, but expected, and somebody should be blamed if perfection is not reached.
Perfection is not a real option that I can choose. When I look at the successful results of Iraq, and I compare it with the worst fears, and even the reasonable fears, of how bad it might have been, I am proud of the US military. And I am ashamed of the US press coverage. It seems the US press has the idea that military action can be done perfectly, with no problems, with no uncertainty in intelligence, with no civilian casualties, with no young boys wounded and in hospitals. The US action in Operation Iraqi Freedom has been the most successful military action in a hundred years. Yes, more successful than World War I, more successful than WW II, more successful than Korea, than Vietnam, than Operation Desert Storm to free Kuwait from being conquered by Iraq. Yet much of the press writes, unfairly and negatively, as if it’s been a failure. Not only the press, but two of the major human rights organizations. I’m talking about Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Both of these organizations seem to follow the same Democratic Party idea – lots of words, maybe resolutions, but avoid action. Avoid supporting any action that might be less than perfect. Today we know a lot about Sudan, and it’s mostly because of the fine work, the humane and human loving work of many people in these organizations. Because of their ideals, we know about the genocidal actions. We have eye-witness reports by victims who have survived multiple rapes, and other torture. Thanks to humanitarian workers on the ground. Such workers have been submitting reports on Sudan to their leadership for months. Yet the leadership, like the press, seems to think that Iraq has been a worse problem.
As you may know, recently Sudan was put on the United Nations Commission for Human Rights. The country which is committing genocide was installed as a member of the Human Rights Commission. And where was Amnesty, where was HRW, with respect to Sudan? Were there protests or objections? Where was the US press? After Sudan was put up for including onto the UN Human Rights Commission, where were the reports about its observance of Human Rights? Oh, I forgot. The press is only interested in human rights violations by the US. Not by any Muslims, like the deaths of some 500 Thai teachers in the last few years. Not by any Arabs, like the Arabs killing Arab journalists, which has continued censorship in Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
And the big organizations are very interested in being critical of the US. And why so critical of the US? Because they don’t want the US to act unilaterally. They want the US military to be used when the UN says so, but only when the UN says so. Their words are that they did not support Saddam Hussein, yet they strongly object to his removal. What is objection to removal other than support for staying on?
In early 2004, there was a report by Human Rights Watch claiming that the United States was committing the worst human rights in the world, or some sort of non-sense like that. I’m proud, mighty proud, of the performance of the US military. But silly critics dishonestly demand perfection. Why is it dishonest? Because they always deny demanding perfection. How can we easily know if perfection is the standard? If there’s no alternative offered. If they talk about prisons in Iraq without discussing homosexual rapes in America.
Why am I talking so much about the press? Because the press matters. Because there is the question about why the Sudanese is government allowing the genocide. Because of the press. Why genocide-- Because of Iraq? Because of Israel? Because of Oil? Because the Arab Muslims are racist against the Black Muslims? Because the UN is essentially irrelevant? Because the Sudanese government thinks the American Government is irrelevant, or too busy elsewhere?
It’s a little bit of all these, but most importantly it’s because Sudan thinks it has an ally in the US press. The Sudanese government thinks that America will fail to act, will fail to stop the genocide, and will offer a sincere apology in a year or so, to the few, scattered, disposed remnants. And it thinks America will not act because of the press, and the fact that Amnesty refuses to name it genocide. Because the Sudanese gov’t has been told by Human Rights Watch Democratic Party attack dogs that America is guilty of the worst abuses in the world. Since America promotes a tolerant, Christian civilization, HRW seems to think we deserve to be punished; and that America can’t afford any activity except for Iraq.
I ask myself, is there anything more I could do to demonstrate to Sudan that I am serious about stopping genocide? And the answer is, not much. I can ask Congress for a resolution about genocide – I expect to do this. I can ask Congress for new spending authority to mobilize troops in case they are needed, as seems very very likely. And I can submit a resolution to the UN. Of course, since there was so little objection to Sudan’s Human Rights mere months ago, it will be no surprise if the UN SC fails to pass a resolution on genocide in Sudan. Especially since the famous orgs do NOT call it genocide.
While the fault is clearly with the UN, if the UNSC fails, such a failure must also be understood as a failure of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, both. And a failure of the International Press. While such policy persons are outspoken against the Iraqi Freedom operation, they have been too quiet on other issues, too quiet about genocide in Sudan. Where are the protests in the street against Sudan? Anti-war protesters seem willing to accept genocide.
I expect to be reviewing our military options. I expect to be planning to go to war, yet again, with another inhumane Arab gov’t; this one actively committing genocide. If we do decide to institute regime change, we will save thousands of lives. I challenge you to support freedom for black Muslims in Sudan’s Darfur region.
