The Boy Who Cried Colonialism

Today the UN Security Council has called for forces to be sent to Darfur to resolve the human tragedy that occurs there. It will be lucky if anyone answers for many peace activists have made such a venture not very PR friendly to the only countries that can send anything.

Ever since the invasion of Iraq to end the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein by the United States and its allies, peace organizations have dubbed it "imperialist" and "colonialist", ignoring the situation on the ground just as they did during Saddam's 40 year rule. They ignored the fact that a Sunni minority ruthlessly controlled the Shi'ia majority just as they ignore the fact now that if US forces leave prematurily it will be the end of the Sunnis. With such a view is it a wonder that America will not intervene?

Already those voices are on the rise again. Recently I heard a woman in a lecture noting that a friend of her in Darfur told her that there is no genocide taking place there and that the western powers are taking care of their interests again. Similar innuendos have been made once before regarding another place, Rwanda, and we all know what happened there. Not suprisingly these innuendos have been dropped by those who had the most to gain from the world ignoring the situation. And so by continuing these calls against the so-called imperialism or colonialism, we risk having the world powers stop doing what is right and start doing what is PR friendly. We might end up warning about genocide only to recieve an answer that "we are truly sorry and sympathize with the victims but we cannot intervene once more and become the target practice of Human Rights organizations once again". It would be like the boy who cried wolf; or more to the point, the peace activist who cried genocide.