Monday, September 18, 2006

The United Nations of Appeasement

From the New York Times:

As world leaders head to the United Nations for a week of meetings that are likely to be dominated by the debate over Iran’s nuclear program, President Jacques Chirac of France said today that those seeking negotiations with Tehran should drop their insistence that it halt uranium enrichment before talks begin.
I'm not one to subscribe to right-wing Francophobia but this is just ridiculous. President Chirac needs to shut up and let countries that matter and that have a vested interest in winning the war on terror do the talking in the U.N.

France has a very disappointing history when it comes to dealing with dictators and rogue regimes. For all the fingers pointed at the U.S. over Darfur, I don't see France building a coalition with Germany and Spain to focus the international community's attention elsewhere either.

The French, politically, are a blithe, antagonistic people. They're too lazy and self-important to fight but yet they have a million opinions about how every other country, especially the U.S., needs to behave itself.

We should not be negotiating with Iran. They have NO reason to test uranium. If your ten year old child came to you asking if they could learn to drive your car on a highway you'd say no, so should the U.S. continue in its course to refuse dialogue with Iran unless they cease uranium enrichment for the purpose of creating nuclear bombs.


Red Tulips said...

I 100% agree!

Also, the UN General Assembly ties up the traffic in NYC. So overall...HMPF!

The United Nations is the League of Nations of our time.

Jay McGinley said...

DARFUR VIGIL DAY 116 (now in NYC); 56 DAYS HUNGER STRIKE since July 4, 2006

It only took just one failed component, one failed component out of millions that painstaking effort had made right, to cause the searing tragedy of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. You'll remember that for Challenger it was a faulty "O ring."

The contributions of the many that led to a brilliantly executed September 17th series of worldwide events is something we all should humbly honor, praise, reverence and express our deep respect and gratitude for. I do. It was awesome. And a handful of truly heroic efforts took place - promoting/filling busses from Pittsburgh, Boston, Ohio, DC, All Parts Global…; logistics; PR.... Thank you and God bless your commitment.

What the September 17th teams worlwide did is absolutely necessary! But there is a faulty "O ring" in the Campaign to Save Darfur. SEPTEMBER 17TH, AND THE FOLLOW-ON EVENTS CONTEMPLATED AND PLANNED WILL NOT STOP THE GENOCIDE. And I have yet to have anyone prominently involved with the Darfur movement that disagrees. And I've asked. And I've received responses.

A crucial component is missing; a component that has been essential for every previous social-change movement. Stopping Genocide requires Monumental Social-Change - NEVER has genocide been stopped. N-E-V-E-R. Never. Not Rwanda, Cambodia, Kurds, Serbrinka, not 6,000,000 Jews.... Kosovo was far too late addressed to some degree.

What is profoundly missing is a Core Group of Leaders that anyone, EVERYONE SEES is heroically putting their skin in the game, standing up for, getting in harms way for, SACRIFICING PERSONALLY for Darfur. Name major social change that has ever come without this. Civil Rights? Apartheid? Stopping Vietnam War? Suffrage? IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

Unmistakable-Sacrificial-Leadership-visible-to-the-masses is the spark plug; the inspiration; the moral clarity; THE PROOF OF IMPORTANCE THAT INSPIRES COMMITTED ACTION IN OTHERS. Leadership of this kind, in sufficient quantity is - the price to Save Darfur. Until the "price" is paid, the genocide will not stop, no matter what else we do.

We can do everything else right (and these are NECESSARY): advertising, PR, rallies, celebrity participation, strategy, Sudan Envoys... but without the ignition, without the spark-plug we've got our "O ring," our efforts will crash in defeat, and 4,000,000 family members in Darfur are exterminated.

I have been begging for two years for such effort:

So Jay, does all this make you right? What matters is: 1. Might it be correct?; 2. That YOU decide, correctly, in time. As Reverend Gloria said in NYC on Sunday, “It’s about T-I-M-E.”

Someone(s) cried out about the "O ring" long, long before the Challenger exploded. I'm sure of it. He/She/They were blown off as troublemaker, renegade, lone ranger, loner, outsider, not-a-team-player.... The Challenger exploded. All that was left were, regrets.

Jay McGinley ( 484-356-6243 DARFUR VIGIL DAY 116 (now in NYC)

ThatGayConservative said...

The French, politically, are a blithe, antagonistic people. They're too lazy and self-important to fight but yet they have a million opinions about how every other country, especially the U.S., needs to behave itself.

Sounds familiar. Oh yeah:

Gen. Webb: Kindly inform Major Heyward that he has little to fear from this General Marquis de Montcalm in the first place; and scant need of a colonial militia in the second because the French haven't the nature for war. Their Gallic laziness combines with their Latinate voluptuousness with the result that they would rather eat and make love with their faces than fight.

The Last of the Mohicans

Anonymous said...

You talk about France not having a good record dealing with dictators and rogue states.

It was the US that gave chemical weapons to Iraq. It was the US that propped up the Shaw of Iran for years. It was the US that supported the Taliban early on in Afghanistan. The US supported dictators in Egypt for years. The list goes on and on.

Get real, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and should learn a little history

Berdo said...

To Anonymous:

Congratulations - you have now provided us with a full liberal talking points memo.

While you're on your history kick - how about checking out what the alternatives were - to the Shah, to Hussein, to the Taliban, etc. Notice the countries that didn't support these moves when they served a progressive agenda at the moment, and the same countries that supported these governments when it became clear how horrible they were.

The US criticizing France for appeasing dictators and avoiding every effort to rid the world of them is hardly a stone/glass houses analogy. I am sorry you can't tell the difference.