Demagogue

A mediator in Chad announced that the Sudanese government and two major rebel groups have agreed to recommit themselves to the ceasefire and peace process. This ceasefire was supposed to bring stability to Darfur, but the accord frequently has been violated.

"Darfur's people are living in hell," Chad's President Idriss Deby told those gathered at Wednesday's talks, which was also attended by the head of the African Union.

Meanwhile, in New York, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan voiced support for a Bush administration proposal to impose a travel and assets freeze on those violating a ceasefire in Darfur.

Annan made the remarks at a meeting to hear a report on the carnage in Darfur by the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour. Arbour said that her commission has identified 51 suspects whose names are being kept confidential until such time that she can provide those names to a "competent prosecutor."

Arbour has urged the UN to permit the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to prosecute these 51 persons. The ICC approach is opposed by the U.S., which wants to establish an ad hoc tribunal in Africa. But I found this statement in the BBC news story rather interesting:

[Arbour] also said that while the report concluded Sudan's government had not pursued a policy of genocide, nothing precluded the possibility of individuals being convicted of such acts.

This is a bit surreal.

Numerous U.S. officials have called Darfur a genocide. Numerous human rights and relief workers have called it a genocide. The UN's official report won't call Darfur a genocide, but suggests that it might prosecute some people for perpetrating genocidal acts.

Even as I write all of this, I am also annoyed by the temptation (rarely resisted) to blast the UN over Darfur. Taking potshots at the UN is much easier than recognizing that the UN can do very little unless the nations with seats on its Security Council reach a consensus.

When BBC's website recently offered visitors the chance to comment on the situation in Darfur, this was one of many insipid (and inaccurate) comments that were written:

"Where is the UN? They want to control world police action, but they remain impotent. As soon as some bullets fly, they pull out their troops and people because it's too dangerous. And the world wonders why the US does what it does?"

Dave, Dallas, TX, USA

Actually, Dave, it was the Americans who bailed out of Somalia after "some bullets (began to) fly ..." And it was the Belgians who did likewise in Rwanda. The UN didn't order or instruct these nations to pull out their peacekeepers from these nations -- these countries decided to cut and run all by themselves.

Of course, the reason "why the U.S. does what it does" around the globe has a lot to do with the fact that there are so many Daves living and voting in America.

Now, I'm going to walk to Starbucks and order a decaf, double-hemlock latte.