Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sudan's crimes, China, and losing the moral high ground

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sudan's crimes, China, and losing the moral high ground

    Sudan's crimes, China, and losing the moral high ground

    By David M. Crane
    Commentary by
    Friday, August 22, 2008

    ....

    The cornerstone to a nation's moral standing is the rule of law. It is through the adherence to law that fundamental freedoms are protected and nurtured. Closely allied to this is a nation's care for its own citizens. A nation's responsibility to protect those living within its own borders is a solemn and sovereign duty. Nations that ignore that duty become pariahs within the family of nations; they too lose the moral high ground.

    Nowhere is this more so than in the Sudan. Though not alone in its ability to feed ravenously on its own citizenry, Sudan has taken this duty to protect and thrown it aside in a widespread and systematic policy to eliminate its own citizens in Darfur. Because of this policy the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, has now been charged with a 10-count indictment for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because of this, Sudan has no moral standing; this undercuts its ability to exist politically within the United Nations paradigm.

    China is another example of a nation that has no moral standing. It cynically provides political cover to Bashir as it continues to hold on to its oil interests in Sudan, looking the other way as thousands die. The Chinese hope that there will be harmony throughout the Olympic Games they are hosting. Imagine if they had the moral high ground from which to actually achieve that harmony. The Potemkin village constructed to mask human rights violations of the past and present makes a mockery of the long and honored history of the Chinese people and their culture. The "harmony" they have spent billions to create as host to the games is built on sand. It will all crumble away after the games are over.

    Other nations have in recent years also lost the moral high ground, many of them in the Middle East. Accordingly, their ability to actively engage in credible efforts for peace is hamstrung. They have no moral standing to negotiate a true peace while civilians are harmed. Because the major players within the region have such little moral standing an atmosphere of mistrust prevails, like a dust cloud in the air, the clarity of a peace uncle.

    It is interesting how little respect is paid to the moral high ground in the 21st century. The last century was mankind's bloodiest and it was hoped with the fall of the iron curtain and the end of the cold war that this new century would turn out better than it has thus far. With the advent of modern international criminal law, just 15 years old, it was hoped that events in the Sudan and elsewhere would not happen again.

    The International Criminal Court is the cornerstone for facing down the beast of impunity and it has acted against Bashir and his henchmen as the United Nations asked it to do. Yet regional organizations like the Arab League and the African Union mock such action. This mockery cheapens their moral standing in the world as well.

    The moral high ground is like personal honor: when lost, it takes many years of hard work to regain. Without question, Sudan has lost the moral high ground. It can only regain it by taking positive and concrete steps such as stopping the killing in Darfur, protecting and nurturing those harmed in the various conflict zones and seeking justice for the tens of thousand of victims there. This would include the eventual handover of Bashir to the International Criminal Court for a fair and open trial.

    As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of various key human rights instruments such as the Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the spirit of the Olympic Games, we should pause to reflect upon how important the moral high ground is to a nation and its true standing in the world. The Bush administration will depart next January along with its skewed and dangerous policies; Bashir will continue to be politically isolated; and a solution by the regional and international players will be fashioned to turn him over for trial within the coming years. They did so with President Charles Taylor of Liberia in 2006, they will do the same with Bashir.

    China will stumble forward fueled by an economic boom, but stumble it will over its poor human rights record. China has lost face and, though feared, it has no respect in the world because of its low moral standing. What makes a nation great is moral standing under the rule of law.

    David M. Crane is a professor at Syracuse University College of Law and a former founding chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2002-2005. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.

    The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - Sudan's crimes, China, and losing the moral high ground
    How far is this indictment correct.

    It is China's policy of non interference in the internal affairs of another country. At least, overtly they display it.

    China requires Sudan's oil and the turmoil charges its defence industry.

    Therefore, they are but looking after the interest of their citizens - more money and more jobs!

    Daily Star is published in Lebanon.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Sir,

    I find this article extremely poor. Exactly, what is China guilty of? Not using its influence to protect people whom they owe no responsibility for? The last time I check, Sudanese citizens are the responsibility of Sudan, not China.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Sir,

      I find this article extremely poor. Exactly, what is China guilty of? Not using its influence to protect people whom they owe no responsibility for? The last time I check, Sudanese citizens are the responsibility of Sudan, not China.
      I appreciate your line of thought. It is exactly what I would like to emphasise.

      Each country is responsible for its fate.

      Therefore, the UN is redundant and the Big 5 should not dictate. The Big 5 should also not interfere in the internal problems of countries.

      Sadly, they do!

      That is the dichotomy of morality and reality!

      That is what perplexes me!

      Have your cake and eat it too! That is what the Big 5 wants!

      Are they wrong? Maybe. What can anyone do about it is the question!


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #4
        Sir,

        It's all bark and no bite. The UNSC has not authorized the necessary actions to really interfere in Sudan and they won't. Somalia was enough disaster.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          Sir,

          It's all bark and no bite. The UNSC has not authorized the necessary actions to really interfere in Sudan and they won't. Somalia was enough disaster.
          Forget Sudan for a moment.

          Let us address the bigger question that you have raised.

          Who has given the Big 5 the moral responsibility to police the world? Indeed, if they have been given so, why are they failing?

          Why this selective morality?

          And why think of action beyond the pale of what is the real international community?

          That is what begs an answer.


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #6
            If might is right so be it.

            Live up to the responsibility that might gives.

            Any answers?


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ray View Post
              Who has given the Big 5 the moral responsibility to police the world?
              The victors of WWII. The formation of the UN was the dream to solve the world's problems through collective action.

              Originally posted by Ray View Post
              Indeed, if they have been given so, why are they failing?
              Namely, Sir, collective action did not replace big power politics which was and is the cause of so many of the world's problems.

              Originally posted by Ray View Post
              Why this selective morality?
              Failure, Sir. Failure.

              Sir, President George Bush Sr tried a moral approach when he forced the UN to intervene in Somalia. The failure of that mission is what prevented the Rwandan intervention and now the Dufar intervention.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                The victors of WWII. The formation of the UN was the dream to solve the world's problems through collective action.

                Namely, Sir, collective action did not replace big power politics which was and is the cause of so many of the world's problems.

                Failure, Sir. Failure.

                Sir, President George Bush Sr tried a moral approach when he forced the UN to intervene in Somalia. The failure of that mission is what prevented the Rwandan intervention and now the Dufar intervention.
                Colonel,

                There is what we call Appreciation of the Situation to understand a Tactical issue. We appreciate the situation and not situate the Appreciation!

                What you are talking of is Situating the Appreciation - justifying the problem!

                Therefore, morality and grandstanding is the first casualty!

                The plain truth is that there is no morality and morality is decided by who has the power!

                Let me give you an example.

                I was very peeved with China's highhandedness during the Torch issue.

                Yet they were scintillating in their Opening Ceremony.

                Now that they have left the world behind in the Gold Medal tally, certain sections of the world are finding all sorts of excuses to damn them. I don't say that these sections are nations who criticise. It is certain sections of society who lace grace.

                I was the one who posted the 'crooked teeth' issue and how the media twisted the facts to do China down!

                Truth must prevail!

                I don't like the CCP, but I do salute China for their excellent organisation and their hardwork of years of preparation to showcase the organisation and crown it with the athletic skills to lead the Gold Medal tally.

                Unbelievable, but deserving all the applause!
                Last edited by Ray; 24 Aug 08,, 09:54.


                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                HAKUNA MATATA

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sir,

                  I like to believe that we would lend a helping hand to those who can't help themselves without they asking us. I also like to believe that when they refuse our help that we should walk away.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Belief and reality are two different things.

                    If you claim to have helped Iraqis, then you could do so here too or Somalia or Kenya!

                    What stops you?

                    Selective morality and grandstanding!

                    And people take pride of being Christians with Christian compassion!

                    Jesus would roll over in his grave!
                    Last edited by Ray; 25 Aug 08,, 05:18.


                    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                    HAKUNA MATATA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The article is strongly 'American'. I don't personally support unconditional sovereignty, but the way the article supports humanitarian intervention (based on a particular version of human rights) is quite disgusting to me.

                      The last paragraph
                      "China will stumble forward fueled by an economic boom, but stumble it will over its poor human rights record. China has lost face and, though feared, it has no respect in the world because of its low moral standing. What makes a nation great is moral standing under the rule of law."

                      I agree there should be rule of law (not rule by law) in China. But the term 'moral standing' and 'no respect' makes me uncomfortable. Since when I should feel ashamed when calling myself a Chinese?


                      As for the morality thing. I don't agree with Mr Ray. Your power politics thing is a healthy correction to the moralism of some classical liberals, but the dominance of power politics doesn't warrant a categorical rejection of morality.

                      I also believe not all human rights are equally important. Rights to live, safety and personal freedom are of course basic rights. Political rights such as election are more controversial and less 'basic'.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Sir,

                        I like to believe that we would lend a helping hand to those who can't help themselves without they asking us. I also like to believe that when they refuse our help that we should walk away.
                        Yes, that would be the correct. Help those who ask for it.

                        The move of the warships with humanitarian aid is an example, where help has been given to those who have asked for it.

                        The humanitarian aid could have also been via cargo ships, but using the GM destroyer was a very forceful message as also an 'aid' - to boost the morale of those whose self esteem had been badly mauled!


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ray View Post
                          The humanitarian aid could have also been via cargo ships, but using the GM destroyer was a very forceful message as also an 'aid' - to boost the morale of those whose self esteem had been badly mauled!
                          Sir,

                          It's power politics. Warships deliver a certain message even when no weapons are fired. I don't think humanitarian aid got anything to do with it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            Sir,

                            It's power politics. Warships deliver a certain message even when no weapons are fired. I don't think humanitarian aid got anything to do with it.
                            Yes, Gunboat diplomacy that was used by Commodore Perry against Japan! :))

                            These destroyer did carry humanitarian aid. It was on the TV. Saw the boxes being moved by the US sailors. And the destroyer looked real slick!

                            Interesting was that the USN used a port that was not in direct control of Russia.

                            The US destroyer captain when asked what would be his reaction if there were any hurdles at sea (obviously meaning with the Russian Navy), he replied that it would be dealt in a professional manner!

                            Of course, neither the US nor Russia would precipitate any crisis.


                            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                            HAKUNA MATATA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ray View Post
                              Of course, neither the US nor Russia would precipitate any crisis.
                              I disagree. Russia seems to be doing a good job of it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X