As Zara walked for ten days carrying her one-year-son through the harshest climate in the world, the driest part of the Sahara, she was forced to think back over the destruction she had just experienced.
“They attacked us very early in the morning, some militiamen on horseback and camels and some soldiers in military vehicles,” she told CBS News. “They burned my village, they killed my people, they slashed their throats and captured others.”
Zara’s husband, along with two of her children, two sisters and three brothers, were brutally murdered by insurgents. Yet Zara was spared, only to live displaced from her home and in constant fear that she would be next.
Zara is a victim of what has been reported by the Human Rights Watch to be the worst genocide and calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter of this generation, alongside the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
A disputed 200,000 to 400,000 native Sudanese have been murdered over the past three years. Millions more have been displaced from their homes and their country in an attempt by an Islamic militant group, the Janjuweed, to ‘ethnically cleanse’ the Darfur region in Sudan of the rebelling native tribe.
Yet for the past four years, this massive loss of life was apparently not enough of a priority to keep the rest of the world from ignorantly ignoring the morbid fate of the native Sudanese people. Despite the signing of a three-phase international force proposal within the Darfur Peace Agreement, which proposed to deploy the largest mission of UN and AU peace keeping troops in history, very little has actually changed. Most of these past four years, a mere 7,000 African Union (AU) troops have been deployed to Darfur, a region the size of France. Their attempts at maintaining peace have been insignificantly brushed aside by the insurgent forces and insignificant in reducing the violence.
Just a few days ago, on Sept. 29 an AU base in Hasakanita, South Darfur was attacked by militant forces killing at least 10 AU peacekeepers, wounding at least seven others and leaving 50 unattended for. This represents the worst incident against neutral peacekeeping troops since the AU mission began in 2003.
If rebel forces have already violently slaughtered over 200,000 people, how can the international community believe that only 7,000 will be capable of creating peace and stability? It seems this small number of peacekeepers would be forced to expend more energy protecting themselves than protecting the people.
Yet the world continues to sit back and watch as they encourage the small force of AU peacekeepers to stop the Janjaweed from continuing to clear the countryside of all civilization, burning any sign of life that once existed to the ground.
If establishing a democratic government and removing a brutal totalitarian dictator is enough reason to forcefully invade Iraq to “establish peace and justice” then motivation to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Darfur should inspire intervention as well. (I’m not calling for a declaration of war, I am merely making a point of international priorities.) If the ground beneath the feet of Zara as she was forced to walk for days through the harshest climate of the Sahara only to seek refuge in camps infested with cholera or hepatitis which only pick up where the Janjaweed leave off, if that land was rich in oil would U.S. attention be different? Should international interest be more important than life? Maybe if political leaders could put a face to this conflict, they would see things differently. A face, Zara’s face, that represents life that should not be taken in vain.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
God is not a Republican – and the Democrats have finally figured it out
(Excerpt from “Faith Race ’08,” The Clause, Sept. 28, 2007)
“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem. There’s a hole in that young man’s heart—a hole that the government alone cannot fix.” Barack Obama said at the Sojourners Call to Renewal Gathering in 2006.
As he continued his discussion on the importance of faith, including his own, within politics, most would be shocked to find that Obama was not running for president of the traditionally conservative religious Republican Party. As a leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s words signified the start of a campaign season saturated in religious talk, leaving the religious right of America praying for direction.
Traditionally, conservative Christian Americans predominantly align with the Republican party, where faith and morality is openly used to support ideals and agendas. Conservative leaders jump at every opportunity to exploit this dividing difference from the “secular” Democratic Party by reminding evangelical Americans that Democrats reject any notion of faith based morality. That is, until now.
The 2008 presidential election season has earned the title ‘Faith Race ’08.’ Not only has America recognized, with the election of President Bush, that religious belief and personal values play a large roll in voter support for a candidate, but the Democrats have finally caught on too. The leading Democratic candidates for this presidential election are not only open about their faith, but active in allowing it to influence their political ideas, regardless of the traditional stance of their party.
Simultaneously, the Republican presidential candidates, have not made issues of Christian faith and values a priority in their campaigns leaving traditionally Republican religious voters with what appears to many as unconventional Republican options; Mitt Romney, “a politically elastic Mormon,” Rudy Guliani, “the twice-divorced, pro-choice, gay-friendly former New York City mayor,” and John McCain, “a maverick who called conservative religious leaders ‘agents of intolerance’ the last time he ran,” according to Michael Duffy and Nancy Gibbs in a Time Magazine article “Leveling the praying field.”
Traditionally, it is the Democrats who have stayed far away from any discussion of religion, values or morality within the political culture, while taking a strong liberal stance on moral questions. While this behavior appeals to secular America, recent [hype for the issues of] abortion, gay marriage, school prayer and stem-cell research proves it typically repels the 55 million Americans who consider themselves pro-life, bible reading, evangelical Christians.
But a sudden acceptance and abundance of religious talk from the mouths of the Democrats has left many, especially the religious right, with valid skepticism of whether religious jargon is straight from the donkey’s ass, or if the Democrats are genuinely taking a step away from their traditional party ties and revealing their true beliefs. A question that should be valid for all candidates.
***
The trends are turning, and the traditionally defined Red and Blue is becoming a shade of muddy purple.
For too long have Evangelical Americans been pressured to see the political world only in shades of red, and those who resist, told they have compromised their faith. For too long have all American voters been forced to chose between a religious right or secular left, rather than individual candidates and their personal beliefs; the beliefs that will direct their decisions and coarse of action. But as this election season approaches, the once starkly dividing issues of faith and morality are less definable by left and right, red or blue. We are progressively moving toward a purple politics without so many labels which determined stances or divisions. A purple politics where candidates are finally standing up for what they believe, not merely their parties stance, and forcing voters to really consider outside their typical ballot box.
To read the complete version of “Faith Race ’08,” visit www.clause.apu.edu
“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem. There’s a hole in that young man’s heart—a hole that the government alone cannot fix.” Barack Obama said at the Sojourners Call to Renewal Gathering in 2006.
As he continued his discussion on the importance of faith, including his own, within politics, most would be shocked to find that Obama was not running for president of the traditionally conservative religious Republican Party. As a leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s words signified the start of a campaign season saturated in religious talk, leaving the religious right of America praying for direction.
Traditionally, conservative Christian Americans predominantly align with the Republican party, where faith and morality is openly used to support ideals and agendas. Conservative leaders jump at every opportunity to exploit this dividing difference from the “secular” Democratic Party by reminding evangelical Americans that Democrats reject any notion of faith based morality. That is, until now.
The 2008 presidential election season has earned the title ‘Faith Race ’08.’ Not only has America recognized, with the election of President Bush, that religious belief and personal values play a large roll in voter support for a candidate, but the Democrats have finally caught on too. The leading Democratic candidates for this presidential election are not only open about their faith, but active in allowing it to influence their political ideas, regardless of the traditional stance of their party.
Simultaneously, the Republican presidential candidates, have not made issues of Christian faith and values a priority in their campaigns leaving traditionally Republican religious voters with what appears to many as unconventional Republican options; Mitt Romney, “a politically elastic Mormon,” Rudy Guliani, “the twice-divorced, pro-choice, gay-friendly former New York City mayor,” and John McCain, “a maverick who called conservative religious leaders ‘agents of intolerance’ the last time he ran,” according to Michael Duffy and Nancy Gibbs in a Time Magazine article “Leveling the praying field.”
Traditionally, it is the Democrats who have stayed far away from any discussion of religion, values or morality within the political culture, while taking a strong liberal stance on moral questions. While this behavior appeals to secular America, recent [hype for the issues of] abortion, gay marriage, school prayer and stem-cell research proves it typically repels the 55 million Americans who consider themselves pro-life, bible reading, evangelical Christians.
But a sudden acceptance and abundance of religious talk from the mouths of the Democrats has left many, especially the religious right, with valid skepticism of whether religious jargon is straight from the donkey’s ass, or if the Democrats are genuinely taking a step away from their traditional party ties and revealing their true beliefs. A question that should be valid for all candidates.
***
The trends are turning, and the traditionally defined Red and Blue is becoming a shade of muddy purple.
For too long have Evangelical Americans been pressured to see the political world only in shades of red, and those who resist, told they have compromised their faith. For too long have all American voters been forced to chose between a religious right or secular left, rather than individual candidates and their personal beliefs; the beliefs that will direct their decisions and coarse of action. But as this election season approaches, the once starkly dividing issues of faith and morality are less definable by left and right, red or blue. We are progressively moving toward a purple politics without so many labels which determined stances or divisions. A purple politics where candidates are finally standing up for what they believe, not merely their parties stance, and forcing voters to really consider outside their typical ballot box.
To read the complete version of “Faith Race ’08,” visit www.clause.apu.edu
Monday, September 24, 2007
Can we trust Bush's opptomistic talk of withdraws?
In light of recent events concerning the war in Iraq, I want to write on the President’s hopeful address to the nation of a possible troop withdrawl, which may not be so hopeful. Ironically, or maybe not so ironically given the common criticism of irony within the President’s statements and decisions, his recent response to Security General Petraeus’s congressional testimony seems to contradict current events in the Middle East.
The President made claims of progress since the surge of 30,000 troops deployed from January until June 2007. While violence may seemingly be subsiding in Baghdad, violent struggles between extremist tribes throughout other regions in the country not only continue, but seem to be increasing. A suicide bombing in the Yazidi providence on Aug. 14 was the deadliest bombing since the U.S. declaration of war in 2002.
Yet while multiple progress reports have been filed and two major congressional testimonies from General Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the President has optimistically announced Sunni success and therefore greater security in the region of Baghdad. These reports allowed Bush to allude to the idea of allowing some troops to be sent home. An optimistic claim could give a little over 5,000 families the holiday season they wouldn’t have even thought to ask for.
While Bush made this announcement during a secret sneak eight-hour visit to the Anbar Province, once one of the most violently dangerous regions in Iraq, he was trying to prove his optimism with his actions. Yet, despite a hint at talk of withdrawals, the President is still supporting a continuation of the troop surge in Congress.
Throughout the world, leaders have lost respect and denied support for the U.S. based on the extended occupation of Iraq, just as many Americans have.
But the question I ask now is if so many truly do not support this war, why are we still occupying Iraq? I have never supported this war, but the reality is that we have been a part of dismembering any resemblance of political leadership and stability and now have taken a serious interest in the “safety and security” of the Iraqi people, or at least their oil. But it’s no use arguing whether we should have invaded Iraq. We did. Period. So the question is what now? Is it reasonable to believe that the President will keep his word and begin to send troops home?
Even Osama Bin Lauden, who resurfaced to make an address on the sixth anniversary of Sept. 11, says it plainly. “People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment. Here is the first of the matter: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?”
It’s terrifying, but Osama Bin Lauden just stated my argument for me.
I wish I could say the President’s visit to Iraq and hint of a withdraw is a positive step in US international relations and I wish I could believe that he is taking steps to begin a withdrawal. Unfortunately I am continually disappointed with actions that fail to support the words that so often proceed from our President’s mouth. My realistic realism tells me not to get my hopes up.
The President made claims of progress since the surge of 30,000 troops deployed from January until June 2007. While violence may seemingly be subsiding in Baghdad, violent struggles between extremist tribes throughout other regions in the country not only continue, but seem to be increasing. A suicide bombing in the Yazidi providence on Aug. 14 was the deadliest bombing since the U.S. declaration of war in 2002.
Yet while multiple progress reports have been filed and two major congressional testimonies from General Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the President has optimistically announced Sunni success and therefore greater security in the region of Baghdad. These reports allowed Bush to allude to the idea of allowing some troops to be sent home. An optimistic claim could give a little over 5,000 families the holiday season they wouldn’t have even thought to ask for.
While Bush made this announcement during a secret sneak eight-hour visit to the Anbar Province, once one of the most violently dangerous regions in Iraq, he was trying to prove his optimism with his actions. Yet, despite a hint at talk of withdrawals, the President is still supporting a continuation of the troop surge in Congress.
Throughout the world, leaders have lost respect and denied support for the U.S. based on the extended occupation of Iraq, just as many Americans have.
But the question I ask now is if so many truly do not support this war, why are we still occupying Iraq? I have never supported this war, but the reality is that we have been a part of dismembering any resemblance of political leadership and stability and now have taken a serious interest in the “safety and security” of the Iraqi people, or at least their oil. But it’s no use arguing whether we should have invaded Iraq. We did. Period. So the question is what now? Is it reasonable to believe that the President will keep his word and begin to send troops home?
Even Osama Bin Lauden, who resurfaced to make an address on the sixth anniversary of Sept. 11, says it plainly. “People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment. Here is the first of the matter: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?”
It’s terrifying, but Osama Bin Lauden just stated my argument for me.
I wish I could say the President’s visit to Iraq and hint of a withdraw is a positive step in US international relations and I wish I could believe that he is taking steps to begin a withdrawal. Unfortunately I am continually disappointed with actions that fail to support the words that so often proceed from our President’s mouth. My realistic realism tells me not to get my hopes up.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
My interest in politics began when I discovered how much I really didn’t know…
A few years ago, I read the story of Immaculee a young woman who hid for 91 days with seven other Tutsi women in a tiny bathroom of a Hutu pastor’s house, escaping the genocide which killed over 800,000 Rwandans in the short span of only three very dark months. Miraculously she survived to tell her story, opening the eyes of a very blind world, as she opened mine.
I was surprised at how little I knew about this atrocity. The Rwandan Genocide began in early April 1994, when I was 8 years old. Despite the fact I was old enough to watch the news with my parents and understand major events people were talking about, I knew very little of the atrocious crimes committed that day, and don’t remember anything about it on news media.
Although I was young, I do remember watching the OJ Simpson trial on TV constantly. I remember seeing footage of the car chase and everyone talking about the verdict.
To my surprise, as I was researching the Genocide further I discovered that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were killed in June 12, 1994, almost exactly two months into the Rwandan Genocide, just as world was beginning to recognize the atrocities occurring in Rwanda.
I was so appalled at how powerful our media is in determining public knowledge and opinion. I recognize that most of my peers are not knowledgeable about important current affairs. Yet I feel strongly that my generation consists of the future decision makers of this country and we must take this responsibility seriously. As we approach the years of adulthood comes a social responsibility which calls us to engage in the world outside of our own physical surroundings and cultural setting, whether we want the responsibility for it or not. We must seek understanding and gain knowledge of the people and places throughout the world where hardships and suffering, celebration and accomplishment or even simple differences exist. While it is a common occurrence for my peers to go on mission trips all around the world learning and participating in other cultures, social responsibility is more than that.
We as Americans have the privilege to make informed political decisions that affect people across the world, across the country, or even just across the street. We have been given a precious gift that most of the world will never have. We can help make political decisions and put political pressure on those who have the power to make a difference. But we can also make decisions about what to do with our own time and money to support and encourage those in need.
Although I still get caught up in my day-to-day routine and business of my own life, God has given me a passion to encourage widespread knowledge of the issues that should impact our political understanding and decisions.
I was surprised at how little I knew about this atrocity. The Rwandan Genocide began in early April 1994, when I was 8 years old. Despite the fact I was old enough to watch the news with my parents and understand major events people were talking about, I knew very little of the atrocious crimes committed that day, and don’t remember anything about it on news media.
Although I was young, I do remember watching the OJ Simpson trial on TV constantly. I remember seeing footage of the car chase and everyone talking about the verdict.
To my surprise, as I was researching the Genocide further I discovered that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were killed in June 12, 1994, almost exactly two months into the Rwandan Genocide, just as world was beginning to recognize the atrocities occurring in Rwanda.
I was so appalled at how powerful our media is in determining public knowledge and opinion. I recognize that most of my peers are not knowledgeable about important current affairs. Yet I feel strongly that my generation consists of the future decision makers of this country and we must take this responsibility seriously. As we approach the years of adulthood comes a social responsibility which calls us to engage in the world outside of our own physical surroundings and cultural setting, whether we want the responsibility for it or not. We must seek understanding and gain knowledge of the people and places throughout the world where hardships and suffering, celebration and accomplishment or even simple differences exist. While it is a common occurrence for my peers to go on mission trips all around the world learning and participating in other cultures, social responsibility is more than that.
We as Americans have the privilege to make informed political decisions that affect people across the world, across the country, or even just across the street. We have been given a precious gift that most of the world will never have. We can help make political decisions and put political pressure on those who have the power to make a difference. But we can also make decisions about what to do with our own time and money to support and encourage those in need.
Although I still get caught up in my day-to-day routine and business of my own life, God has given me a passion to encourage widespread knowledge of the issues that should impact our political understanding and decisions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)