Sudan. Will the world take notice?

[Weird Harold]

It is sad. Many people are afraid to give to causes, thinking their money is going to line someone's pockets rather than going to help those truly in need.

We contribute regularly to the Red Cross, and United Way through direct deductions from my husband's paycheck. But what we can give is a drop in the bucket.

Your "drop in a bucket" is a lot bigger than you might think.

I'm sure that most of us have seen the heart-tugging appeals for "just eighty cents a day" from children's charities and scornfully thought "yeah, right, Like eighty cents will even get you a cheeseburger at McDonalds" or some similar expression of disbelief.

I think it actually takes experiencing the difference in "cost of living" (more like the cost of subsistence, actually) for someone to really understand that the American Standard of Living (and to some extent the "Western" standard of living) is the exception rather than the rule around the world.

I know from personal experience that $10.00 a month can be sufficient to provide a room and food in some places -- although inflation may have made the lifestyle I lived when I moved off-base in Thailand in 1971 a bit more expensive, it may be as much as $20 Month for room and board now.

If you're inclined to see "eighty cents a day" as a scam -- "because it's just not possible to live on that little" -- please realize that it's NOT a scam; to many people around the world, eighty cents a day is a LOT of money.

 

[cloudy]

Most charities consist of drops in the bucket, until there are enough of them to draw the attention of benefactors looking for worthwhile causes. Giving to a charity that's able to document the effectiveness of its spending, like Red Cross or World Ark, has a value beyond the dollars you're able to give.

Thanks, Sher.

There's also a more home-grown charity I participate in: Project Linus.

I can't sit still and watch tv, so I do crochet (yes, I know), and make blankets to send to Project Linus, which they then distribute to the homeless.

I also send them to a reservation, where they're handed out to the elderly and poor there.

Little enough that I can do, but every little bit helps.

 

[shereads]

But, since the Sudan is not sitting on any major natural resourses that can't be gotten elsewhere (it does have some oil, gold other minerals which are exported) it will continue to be under the radar of the american public, media and government.

There may a selfish reason to care, after all. Sudan is in danger of becoming a haven for terrorist training camps, because of the lack of civil order, the vast amount of empty space, abandoned villages - and most significantly, the absolute hopelessness that is faced by the people still alive. Sooner or later, someone will find a way to turn their suffering into resentment, and their resentment into a weapon to be used against the "haves." Hopelessness is an unstoppable force.

 

[Guest]

 

[mismused]

I have also seen the tragedy in Sudan and it tears at my heart, but why is it that we assume that it is the US's (and Britain's) sole responsibility to take action to help stop the bloodshed.

Where are those, and I suppose I am aiming my salvos for primarily the French and Germans, but also other EC/Nato countries, who are not involved in Iraq, yet seem devoid of the ability to take any action, regardless of the tragedy involved? They speak volumes of their desire to lead the 'new Euope' on an independent role in world affairs, but retoric is all they offer. The opportunity (necessity?) to lead is certainly there, but where is the action of leadership? Why are they not going to the UN to offer their assistance and provide the forces necessary to end the bloodshed?

MSL

==========================

Or, more pointedly, where are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, along with the Emeriates???

They're making the big bucks with over $40 a barrel oil, and it is their region.

No, this will go down like it always has, the U.N. posturing, and doing nothing as it hasn't with the clitoridectomies, or, for a time, much worse, as they did by turning a blind eye to what happened to the Tutsi's: 800,000 to a million slaughtered by the majority Hutu tribe. One Canadian General still has nightmares over what he saw there that nobody did anything to prevent.

Then again, there's still the Congo where everyone in Africa is fighting to gain control of the mineral wealth.

mismused (sorrowful about the sad state of affairs, but it how it has been since time immemorial.)

 

[shereads]

Have another look: Fun in the Sun

cantdog

Hard to comprehend.

 

[shereads]

Where are those, and I suppose I am aiming my salvos for primarily the French and Germans, but also other EC/Nato countries, who are not involved in Iraq, yet seem devoid of the ability to take any action, regardless of the tragedy involved? They speak volumes of their desire to lead the 'new Euope' on an independent role in world affairs, but retoric is all they offer. The opportunity (necessity?) to lead is certainly there, but where is the action of leadership? Why are they not going to the UN to offer their assistance and provide the forces necessary to end the bloodshed?

For the same reasons we aren't, I guess.

I understand your complaint about the feeling that the US is expected to intervene. I could try to justify my belief that we ought to intervene, by arguing that we use more of the world's natural resources, per capita, than any other country. And that a tiny fraction of our military budget - not the overall budget, but just the billions by which our military budget exceeds the combined spending of Russia, China and any other country that could be considered a threat to us - could provide every orphan in Sudan with a life of luxury.

But I think the real argument for intervening is just that while we're posting to this thread, something unspeakable is happening to innocent people, and what a miracle it would be if instead of adding to the world's problems or addressing them in gestures here and there, limited by political directives, we actually solved one enormous problem. Sort of a class project, like Adopt-a-Highway, but with lives.

Edited to add: I was surprised to learn that the U.S. is not the world leader in donations to foreign charities, as I think most Americans believe. Japan is. Japan and one or two other countries - maybe Germany? - give a higher percentage of their national wealth in foreign aid than the U.S.

 

[shereads]

==========================

Or, more pointedly, where are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, along with the Emeriates???

They're making the big bucks with over $40 a barrel oil, and it is their region.

Saudi Arabia has startling poverty and a weak economy, thanks to spending by the royal family that's downright pathological, on things like a palace complex the size of a small city built by one of the princes. I had always thought they had a high standard of living, as Kuwait does, but a recent feature in National Geographic showed that not to be the case.

No wonder the royal family were paying protection money to Al Queda. They're scared of their own people, as they should be.

 

[SeaCat]

MrsSublime,

No blasting from me. I entirely understand your thoughts for I have often asked them myself.

The United States and Britain are often vilified in the world press because of our stands. We have been taken to task by the U.N. many times, but who is it that always shows up to put out the fires?

Recently the United States was called to task for not contributing enough to the World Bank and The I.M.F. but no one thought to ask how much of a percentage of these orginisations moneys came from us, and yet they now want more.

The United States and Britain are vilified in the world press because we don't seem to care enough to send more money to the poor countries, I would love to see a breakdown of how much of the money going to the orginisations helping there actually comes from countries other than the United States and Britain.

How much of the money donated to charities actually gets to the people they are helping, and how much goes to overhead?

I help out as much as Ican, as do many of the people I know. Yes we gove to charities, but we carefully select which charities. I don't know about Britain, but here in America we have enough homeless people to populate a small country, yet nobody seems to care or complain about it. (I have never heard an outside group complaining about the people here starving to death or freezing to death.)

There was an article a few days ago about how the United States isn't giving aweay enough Anti-Aids drugs to Africa, yet there was no mention in the article about the many people here in America who can't afford the drugs they need to stay alive.

There are many news reports screaming about the people being killed in places like Bosnia, but they never mention how we have that many deaths a year from murders in America.

Yes I know the United States is the last World Power, and one of the only democracies, (hehehehe) but we too have our problems. While I give till it hurts I also believe in the old statement that Charity begins at home.

Cat

 

[shereads]

MrsSublime,

No blasting from me. I entirely understand your thoughts for I have often asked them myself.

The United States and Britain are often vilified in the world press because of our stands. We have been taken to task by the U.N. many times, but who is it that always shows up to put out the fires?

Recently the United States was called to task for not contributing enough to the World Bank and The I.M.F. but no one thought to ask how much of a percentage of these orginisations moneys came from us, and yet they now want more.

The United States and Britain are vilified in the world press because we don't seem to care enough to send more money to the poor countries, I would love to see a breakdown of how much of the money going to the orginisations helping there actually comes from countries other than the United States and Britain.

How much of the money donated to charities actually gets to the people they are helping, and how much goes to overhead?

I help out as much as Ican, as do many of the people I know. Yes we gove to charities, but we carefully select which charities. I don't know about Britain, but here in America we have enough homeless people to populate a small country, yet nobody seems to care or complain about it. (I have never heard an outside group complaining about the people here starving to death or freezing to death.)

There was an article a few days ago about how the United States isn't giving aweay enough Anti-Aids drugs to Africa, yet there was no mention in the article about the many people here in America who can't afford the drugs they need to stay alive.

There are many news reports screaming about the people being killed in places like Bosnia, but they never mention how we have that many deaths a year from murders in America.

Yes I know the United States is the last World Power, and one of the only democracies, (hehehehe) but we too have our problems. While I give till it hurts I also believe in the old statement that Charity begins at home.

Cat

Aren't we lucky that we have the ability to solve both problems? We could end poverty at home and make an enormous dent it the third world's problems too, if we trimmed just one program that's obsolete: the anti-ballistic missle laser defense system. The need for an ICBM as the delivery mechanism for nukes or bioweapons seems minimal now, but we keep pumping billions into developing the defense in case somebody decides that it's too much trouble to bring smallpox ashore in a duffle bag.

 

[mismused]

Aren't we lucky that we have the ability to solve both problems? We could end poverty at home and make an enormous dent it the third world's problems too, if we trimmed just one program that's obsolete: the anti-ballistic missle laser defense system. The need for an ICBM as the delivery mechanism for nukes or bioweapons seems minimal now, but we keep pumping billions into developing the defense in case somebody decides that it's too much trouble to bring smallpox ashore in a duffle bag.

==========================

As astute a political personage as you, and several others here are, I nearly hate to seem to contradict you.

However, in my opinion, until there is an end to both ignorance and greed, we will always have more poor than we can do for.

Bernie Ebbers, Kozlowski, The Enron gang, ad infinitum have done more to impoverish what were once fair to do people.

Political posturing, the need/greed for dollars to stay in power, have also impoverished many of the elderly with pharmaceutical needs that mean stay alive to starve, or starve and save a few dollars, not to mention the still potent tobacco folks.

There are many ills in the world, and they have always been there. It will not end until the world gets a heart, and we all know that corporations (and just about all) politicians have no hearts.

My heart has been bleeding for many of these people, both overseas, and here, but there is an unfortunate perspective that demands our attention.

Yes, Sher, you're right, but they'll always, as you know, find another program to squander it on (and wouldn't you know it, their friends are first in line to garner the largesse).

mismused

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Personally, I'd like to see the US get involved because that's where I live. The USA is my country, and I don't much care what the rest of Western Europe or South America or Japan or wherever choose to do or not do. If someone's being murdered in the street you don't wait to see what your neighbors will do

When there was a genocide in Bosnia the US rallied NATO and twisted some arms and we all went in there and we stopped it, which personally made me proud. I think that's what armed forces are for, to protect people.

If we did it in Bosnia we could certainly organize a relief for Sudan.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Personally, I'd like to see the US get involved because that's where I live. The USA is my country, and I don't much care what the rest of Western Europe or South America or Japan or wherever choose to do or not do. If someone's being murdered in the street you don't wait to see what your neighbors will do

When there was a genocide in Bosnia the US rallied NATO and twisted some arms and we all went in there and we stopped it, which personally made me proud. I think that's what armed forces are for, to protect people.

If we did it in Bosnia we could certainly organize a relief for Sudan.

---dr.M. [/B]

It made me proud too. Using our power effectively, without a lot of posturing, to do something for unselfish reasons. The phrase "Ugly American" disappeared from my memory for a while.

 

[Lord Naraku]

Ok, I'm going to play the bad guy and just explain some stuff.

One the reason the UN went into Bosina, well it's alittle rule that the UN MUST take action to prevent geocide. Now the UN security counsul removes the word geocide from there reports so the UN doesn't have to take action. Please remember the UN was founded just after the second world war, the world just learned what that word meant and therefor put it in the charter to prevent such things. Why don't the put the word geocide in? I would say they don't have the resources.

Two in the first US-Iraq war the US stated that it was wrong to for one country to go in and change the government of another.

Three in the second US-Iraq war well we just changed our minds.

What does all this mean? The world took notice of the US changing the government of another country. This scared a large portion of the world, because they abuse there own ppl daily. IF the US where to go around and start righting the worlds wrongs, I'm pretty sure we would end up in some kinda second "cold war" staring down quite a few heavily armed and nuclear capable nations. We all know China doesn't treat it's ppl very well, all of us also know China still has a huge wel equiped army, and a large nuclear stockpile. Does anybody really want to make a country like China parnoid somebody is going to invade them?

 

[oggbashan]

Guns or food

Unfortunately the charities cannot help effectively until the shooting stops.

Sudan's government has said it will stop the militias killing and raping in Darfur, but nothing has happened yet.

To get enough foreign troops into Darfur to protect the refugees is logistically impossible without Sudan's cooperation. Even with it, it would be difficult. Even if say UN troops were there, how do they tell the good guys from the bad guys? Sudan is split between tribes, religions, cultures. It seems that all factions have been guilty of attempted genocide. Can the UN stand between parties in a civil war?

Imagine, if you can, what it would have been like if the UN had tried to stand between Federals and Confederates in the US Civil War. The situation in Sudan is far more complex. A cease-fire is essential otherwise the aid workers will die as well.

Og

 

[DirtyJJ]

I wish I had soemthing profound and wise to say about all this - but I just wanted Tatelou and others to know that I am glad we are talking about this. It just makes me sad and feel hopeless when I think about the atrocities that are taking place around the world, while in the US we have so much food we are killing ourselves with obesity, and have so many material goods at our disposal that we take so many things for granted.

It makes me feel a bit helpless... but some of you who have noted ways to give to various charities have given me some idea of how I might help, on a small scale at least.

 

[oggbashan]

I have also seen the tragedy in Sudan and it tears at my heart, but why is it that we assume that it is the US's (and Britain's) sole responsibility to take action to help stop the bloodshed.

Where are those, and I suppose I am aiming my salvos for primarily the French and Germans, but also other EC/Nato countries, who are not involved in Iraq, yet seem devoid of the ability to take any action, regardless of the tragedy involved? They speak volumes of their desire to lead the 'new Euope' on an independent role in world affairs, but retoric is all they offer. The opportunity (necessity?) to lead is certainly there, but where is the action of leadership? Why are they not going to the UN to offer their assistance and provide the forces necessary to end the bloodshed?

I'm not saying that the US is blameless here, but it seems to be assumed that we're the only country which can 'do something' and make a difference? Such an attitude would be dangerous for all the earth's inhabitants.

MSL

I cannot speak for Germany, but France is heavily involved in West Africa, both as itself and as part of the UN. French soldiers are dying for peace there.

Medecins Sans Frontieres is a French led organisation that goes and stays where even the Red Cross won't go.

The French people were supportive of their government's stance on Iraq - not without UN authority - and their government wasn't convinced that Saddam was a clear and present danger. It seems NOW that they were right.

France has a massive Muslim population. That doesn't mean that their Muslims support Al Quaeda but that their government has a better understanding of Muslim states' politics and limitations than most. France may also have had better intelligence in the area than the US or UK. France's reservations before the war were portrayed as defeatist - remember 'Freedom Fries'?

The US may not have liked what France said and did in the lead up to the war but France, believe it or not - that is your privilege - is an ally and friend of the US. Saying unpleasant truths is something a friend will do even if it strains the friendship.

France could not join the war without the support of its people. That support was not there because France has fought Muslim fundamentalists before and paid a heavy price for it.

France's contribution to Africa is underestimated even by their friends.

Og

 

[Vincent E]

The United States is admittedly stretched to the limit in Afganistan and Iraq. While our activity in Afganistan has been more popular on the homefront than the war in Iraq, and while the country is becoming divided over wether we should have gone to Iraq or not, one thing is irrefutably clear. The muslim populations of both these countries are better off than they were before US intervention. Our invasion of Afganistan was to root our Al-Queada and had the effect of displacing the Taliban. Now Afgani women can attend schools, go to the doctor and dentist, and walk the streets to the market without fear of being murdered. (Real women's liberation courtesy of the US).

Iraq is still embroiled in violence caused by insurgents unaware that their dictatorship has ended. The violence in Iraq continues to be of great concern to Americans, as we want our troops home soon and safely while also wanting the Iraqi people to enjoy a more democratic government with greater liberties than they have previously known.

However, much of the world still condemns the US taking action in Iraq. The "coalition of the willing" has also enjoyed little positive press after joining us.

Now the world just sort of looks at what is going on in the Sudan, shrugs its shoulders, and says, "why should we get involved?"

We have seen that, for better or worse, it is the United States that takes the lead in these situations. What is the reward? Condemnation for not getting UN approval, a berating in the national press, and a growing distrust of the US.

However, the ethnic cleansing that is taking place in the Sudan is Muslim inspired atrocities comited against the Christian population. Not the type of crime that is likely to spur the United Nations to any type of serious action.

So here we have a recent radition of the United States giving aid to muslim poeples in Bosnia, Afganistan, and Iraq. In Bosnia the US sided with the Muslim victims of ethnic cleansing. Yet now, with the opportunity to balance the international scales of justice and lend support and humanitarian aid to an oppressed people, the Muslim world sits by silently and watches the atrocities grow. Where is the Internatioanl Red Crescent? Where are the North African nations? Indeed, just as the powers of Europe sat by and watched Bosnian war crimes, so now the muslim nations of North Africa sit and watch from a front row seat.

It seems to me that is America does not act, no one will. I am sure that some Hollywood phonies will raise the issue of Sudan in their next awards show. But imagine their shock and horror if someone were to actually do something.

Damn, I hate getting political in this forum. I hope not to do it again.

 

[shereads]

France may also have had better intelligence in the area than the US or UK.

That's impossible! Our informants were personally screened by the most trustworthy Iraqi exile ever convicted of bank fraud.

"Better intelligence." Ha.