Sandwiches en la Torre de la Vela

Asociacionismo, libertad y comida rápida, por Jahd

3 de Agosto 2004

Las excusas son como los culos

Todo el mundo tiene, incluso para evitar actuar en la masacre de Darfur, como denuncia en un editorial el Washington Post:

'Realism' and Darfur
[...]
The world knows, and on Friday the United Nations Security Council acknowledged [Resolución 1556], that Sudan's government is responsible for burnings of villagers, systematic rapes and murder by starvation. It knows that these atrocities continue. And yet outsiders are content with measures that won't stop the appalling suffering.
[...]
There are excuses for inaction -- or, more charitably, "caution" -- and they deserve to be confronted one by one.

El editorial pasa a enumerar dichas excusas:

"Soberanía", no interferir en asuntos internos de un pais, a menos que estos afecten a los vecinos:

when respecting the sovereignty of failed states such as Afghanistan is not a viable option. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, demonstrated that what states do within their own borders can affect international security. Sovereignty is therefore a less useful principle than it once was, and Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary general, has commissioned a study on ways of updating it. Refusing to save hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur out of defer- ence to an already tattered doctrine seems unwarranted.

"Interés nacional". ¿Se nos ha perdido algo en Darfur? ¿Se nos ha perdido algo en Irak? ¿Se nos había perdido algo en Yugoslavia? ¿O en los Sudetes?

"Las represalias del mundo musulmán". If this were correct, it would be extremely serious: The war against terrorism is a battle for Islamic hearts and minds. [...] But the key to winning hearts and minds throughout the region is not to defer to the autocratic government of Egypt, still less to Sudan's rulers, whose victims in Darfur are after all Muslims. In contemplating intervention in Sudan, Arab opinion must be considered. But it's not clear that this means that intervention should be ruled out.

¿Hay más excusas? La conclusión del editorial es contundente:

Perhaps there are other arguments for "caution" in the face of Darfur's genocide, and we invite President Bush and other leaders to come forward and explain them. According to officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development, up to 30,000 people in Darfur have died violently, 50,000 have died of disease and malnutrition, and the death toll is likely to reach at least 300,000. The reasons for non-intervention had better be as powerful as those astonishing numbers.

Completamente de acuerdo. Sin al menos 300.000 excusas que cuesten esos posibles (¿o ya probables?) 300.000 muertos, no hay excusa que valga. Nuestros gobiernos son cómplices por inacción de un genocidio, aunque oficialmente no haya sido reconocido como tal.