Why do we tolerate genocide?

I was pointed to this Nicholas Kristof New York Times article by Ray. It's very disturbing and sad. Just last week, the United Nations was trying to pass a declaration saying that countries have an "obligation" to respond to genocide.

In the end the declaration was diluted to say that "We are prepared to take collective action... on a case by case basis" to prevent genocide.

The change in language was pushed by an unlikely coalition of countries: Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria, Venezuela... and the United States.

Isn't that astounding? Doesn't that make you sick to your stomach? I mean, the US has had an embargo against Cuba for what, 4 decades? Iran is one the three countries on Bush's infamous Axis of Evil reference (Iran-Iraq-North Korea) and it's the next country in the administration's crosshairs. Syria, for some obscure reason, wasn't included in Bush's Axis of Evil (maybe he can only count up to three,) but it's now one of the main targets of the administration for its assistance to the resistance in Iraq. Venezuela... let's not even go there. Its democratically elected president and our forcibly appointed one have been in a standoff for years. Bush even supported (and probably financed) a military coup to unseat him, but he survived it and is now one of the most vocal opponents of Bush's policies. I don't really have much information on Zimbabwe, but how do you like our companions so far? Nice bunch we're hanging out with, uh?

It's atrocious and troublesome, and remind me again why we joined them? Oh, yes, to oppose a UN declaration that all countries are obliged to intervene if there is evidence of genocide anywhere in the world. Well, who would ever want to do that?! Why stop genocide? After all, isn't the Holocaust one of our proudest moments as a species?

Incredible. Bush should feel ashamed forever for such a wimpy, immoral, unethical choice. How un-Christian of him to turn his back on thousands, millions of people gang-raped, mutilated, burned alive, bludgeoned to death by evil regimes bent on eradicating unwanted minorities from their countries, Places like Rwanda a few years back and Darfur, Sudan, today.

The writer concludes his piece by pointing out that Bush isn't the only one to blame. No other nation seems to pay attention to the Darfur situation, and so is the media. But he lists a few things that our leader could do that wouldn't cost him, or us, virtually anything: speak out about the ongoing genocide to rile the world nations together against it and focus the public attention on the atrocities; impose a no-fly zone; appoint a presidential envoy to build an international coalition to pressure Sudan (just appoint another one of your cronies, but do something.)

Mr. Kristof uses the most apt word to describe the UN failure to pass a strong declaration: embarrassment.

It's embarrassing that in the 21^st century, we can't even accept a vague obligation to fight genocide as we did in the Genocide Convention of 1948. If the Genocide Convention were proposed today, President Bush apparently would fight to kill it.

What a failure and an embarrassment of a president.