New York Times Editorial, "South Africa’s Disgraceful Help for President Bashir of Sudan": While South Africa and the Times Bash Israel

In an editorial entitled "South Africa’s Disgraceful Help for President Bashir of Sudan," The New York Times writes:

"On Monday, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan fled arrest in South Africa and is now safely back in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital. His escape is another blow to the International Criminal Court, which has been struggling to bring him to trial for six years on charges of crimes against humanity and genocide.

This could not have happened without the complicity of the South African government, which deserves international condemnation. The biggest losers are the innocent victims of Mr. Bashir’s cruel policies in Darfur who are still being denied justice

Members of the international court like South Africa are supposed to respect its warrants. The charges against Mr. Bashir include murder, acts of extermination and rape among other abuses in Darfur, where 300,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced since 2003."

Interesting. South Africa has assisted a person guilty of genocide to escape justice, yet South Africa boisterously decries the purported existence of apartheid in Israel at every opportunity.

But why should South Africa be any different from The New York Times, which also bashes Israel on its op-ed page on a regular and systematic basis?

Nicholas Kristof, "From Peace Prize to Paralysis": Holy Cannoli, Kristof and I Agree

I think "contempt" would be a kind description of how I generally hold Nicholas Kristof's opinion pieces. Perhaps this explains why I almost fell out of my chair after reading his latest New York Times op-ed, "From Peace Prize to Paralysis" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/kristof-from-peace-prize-to-paralysis.html?ref=opinion). An irate Kristof writes from the Nuba Mountains in Sudan:

"WHEN a government devours its own people, as in Syria or Sudan, there are never easy solutions. That helps explain President Obama’s dithering, for there are more problems in international relations than solutions, and well-meaning interventions can make a crisis worse.

Yet the president is taking prudence to the point of paralysis. I’m generally an admirer of Obama’s foreign policy, but his policies toward both Syria and Sudan increasingly seem lame, ineffective and contrary to American interests and values. Obama has shown himself comfortable projecting power — as in his tripling of American troops in Afghanistan. Yet now we have the spectacle of a Nobel Peace Prize winner in effect helping to protect two of the most odious regimes in the world."

I agree: With respect to both Syria and Sudan, there are no easy solutions, and I would not consider an American ground presence in either country. However, there is so much more Obama could do to end the carnage in both these countries . . . if he really wanted to do so. But this time around, the problem is not one of "dithering" by the Procrastinator-in-Chief. Rather, as acknowledged by a recent article in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-foreign-policy-obama-focuses-on-economic-issues-not-on-syrian-turmoil/2012/06/02/gJQAVrSX9U_story.html),
Obama is avoiding action at least with respect to Syria so as not jeopardize his chances of re-election in November:

"The reticence from a president who has made repairing America’s moral leadership in the region a central premise of his administration, and who delivered a speech from the heart of the Arab world three years ago designed to do just that, has disturbed those pressing for stronger international response to the crisis.

. . . .

Any incumbent president hopes for a quiet world during campaign season to avoid the distractions that can upset a successful reelection effort. That is especially true for Obama, who is making his case for a second term in part on the argument that he has been an effective steward of America abroad, concluding its long wars and rejuvenating its alliances."

Kristof concludes his op-ed by savaging Obama for his inaction:

"Obama was forceful in demanding that President George W. Bush stand up to Sudan during the slaughter in Darfur, so it’s painful to see him so passive on Sudan today. When governments turn to mass murder, we may have no easy solutions, but we should at least be crystal clear about which side we’re on. That’s not too much to expect of a Nobel Peace Prize winner."

Well, apparently it is too much to expect from a narcissist, whose primary motivation today is re-election, i.e. self-aggrandizement.

Kristof's "Chronicle of a Genocide Foretold": Obama Talks Quietly and Carries No Stick

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Chronicle of a Genocide Foretold" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/opinion/30kristof.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) in which we are told that Obama needs to get tougher to avoid genocide in Sudan's south, inveterate leftist Nicholas Kristof says there are plenty of carrots being offered by Obama to Sudan's President Bashir, but no sticks:

"I see no evidence of serious sticks. Put yourself in President Bashir’s shoes. It may still be in his interest to plan a genocidal strategy in the coming months if that will enable him to keep the oil. Even privately, we haven’t laid out strong enough disincentives."

What a surprise! Obama has made a name for himself throughout the world as a president who talks quietly, using teleprompters, and carries no stick at all -- in discussions with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Myanmar. Only when the talk focuses on U.S. ally Israel are there calls from the left to "break bones" (see Roger Cohen's recent "A Test of Israel's Character" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/09/cohens-test-of-israels-character-bon.html)).

Remarkable how Kristof acknowledges how the Bush administration knew how to talk with bullying murderer Bashir.

However, nothing can be achieved in Sudan without also acknowledging the true racial overtones of this conflict, which Kristof does not disclose to his readers. This is a country where hundreds of thousands of black animists, i.e. non-Muslims, in the south have already been slaughtered by Arabs from the north with the support of oil-hungry China and the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran.

A flaccid, irresolute Obama administration is suddenly going to rein in China and Iran? I wouldn't bet on it. After all, it's much easier and more politically correct today to beat up on tiny democratic Israel.

Thanks, Nicholas, for this mendacious display of would-be candor.

"Obama Backs Down on Sudan": Kristof Awakens to Obama's Horrifying Human Rights Record

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Obama Backs Down on Sudan" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/opinion/22kristof.html), columnist Nicholas Kristof expresses disappointment with Obama for ignoring human rights abuses in Sudan. Krisof deserves credit for acknowledging, unlike his fellow servile NYT columnists, Obama's failed human rights record in this one country, albeit belatedly. My online comment, if the Times deigns to post it:

"Yet, as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness."

Why are you so surprised, Nicholas, that Obama has "caved"? Have a look around the rest of the world:

Talk with Iran's dissidents, who chanted "Obama, Obama, either you are with us or them!" when they took to the streets. Iran's oppressed Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, homosexuals, women, political opponents, journalists? Obama has never complained about their treatment or brought their case to the attention of the U.N. or any other international body.

When Obama traveled to China, he refused to breathe a word about Chinese human rights abuses. Moreover, in order to further appease the Chinese, when Obama finally agreed to see the Dalai Lama in February in the Map Room (not the Oval Office), there was no official welcome, the meeting was closed to the press, and only a single White House photo was released.

Obama traveled to Istanbul during his first overseas visit as president; however, in order to placate the Turks, he reneged on his campaign promise to recognize Armenian Genocide.

Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, but refuses to address state sanctioned terror against women in that country, e.g., women who have been gang raped are sentenced to prison and whipped.

Ignoring horrifying human rights records, Obama has made overtures to despotic governments in Syria and Burma.

Nicholas, I think you deserve much respect for addressing Obama's failure to address human rights abuses in Sudan; however, it need be noted that Obama has systematically thrown human rights under the bus throughout the world.