The UN Gets One Right (Sort of); Muslim nations get it deeply wrong

While the big foreign policy news today was Iran's (hardly unexpected) defiance of the UN deadline for suspending its nuclear program, the UN Security Council's resolution on Sudan should not be overlooked.  The UN is rightly derided for its incompetence, corruption, moral confusion, and persistent fecklessness in the face of any serious international challenge.  Yet every now and then even the UN gets one right.  Such was the case today when the Security Council by a vote of 12-0 passed a resolution calling for a strengthened peacekeeping operation to help end the almost medieval yet all too modern campaign of raping, pillaging and killing sponsored by the Sudanese government against farmers and villagers in the Darfur region.  The US government has determined Khartoum's actions to be genocide -- and rightly so, given the systematic murders of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.  The peacekeeping force is too little, too late, and may not even deploy if Khartoum continues to resist.  But today's resolution is a long overdue start.

Perhaps the greatest shame is the stunning silence of the entire Islamic world.  Did I not mention that the Darfuris suffering from the genocide are virtually all Muslim?  Yet not one Muslim government has raised a voice in protest -- let alone lent a hand in help.  Even more contemptible, the three nations who abstained from today's vote were autocratic Russia, communist China, and feeble Qatar, acting on behalf of the entire Arab League.  Why?  Because the Sudanese Government in Khartoum is largely headed by Arab Muslims, and Muslim governments across the globe are pathetically reluctant to criticize one of their own.  Even when the government in question is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, whose only "fault" happens to be that they are poor, vulnerable, and African.  Meanwhile, the United States and the United Kingdom, so often criticized in the Muslim world for being "anti-Muslim" because we oppose jihadist terrorism, are also the two governments who have led the effort to save Muslim lives in Darfur.  This is the Muslim world's opportunity to stand up and show principle and moral clarity.  Instead, too many Muslim governments are sitting down -- or standing in the way.

Andrew

Comments

[Thomas More]

The telling sentence seems to be:

"The new U.N. mandate would take effect only with Sudan's consent, and its president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir, immediately rejected it."

So the three abstainers don't even have the moral ability to vote for something right, even when they know it will have no practical effect! Remarkable, telling, sad.

If I were Amb. Bolton, I would have a very difficult time not expressing my contempt for these people, and not flying into rage after rage. Diplomacy with scum.

The UN is wasting my tax dollars, and far worse, wasting the lives of countless Darfuris. Horribly, horribly sad.

Thomas More

[Robert]

Sir, I am in awe of this post and I would like to borrow it for an anti-UN blog I am a part of. with the credit going to you of course.

[Thomas More]

Robert,

Writing for St. Andrew: Borrow away. We hope it helps your effort. But put a link in the comment section and/or a trackback on it if you can--we'd love to see the follow up.

Thanks,

Thomas More

[Robert]

Ok I posted this as a partial with a read the rest here link.
http://reject-the-un.blogspot.com/
Thanks again

[Thomas More]

Robert,

I posted back on the site you gave us. Just to clarify more about our site.

Thanks,

Thomas More