A few months ago a Caucasian workmate, who holds very strong conservative views expressed what I thought was a really extreme ideology- he thought the situation in Africa where the weakest in society are disposed of by the mightiest in the battle for survival is an ideal condition, necessary for the long term wellbeing of the human specie. He wished also, the western society would stop extending welfare benefits to members of society that would, otherwise develop the capacity to meet their own needs or succumb to the inevitable consequence of their weakness. He further stated that the weak in society always threaten the general welfare of the whole society by drawing the energy and resource to sustain their lives from, the strongest members of society instead of adding to the capacity of the whole.
And so, as I learned of the slaughter of UN peace keepers in Darfur by Sudanese rebels, I wondered if the initial slow response by the west; to the killing of thousands of helpless and weak members of the Darfur society was, some how or in part rooted in this extreme view.
The US state department had the following response to the recent killings in Darfur.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the punitive measures could include travel bans and financial restrictions on individuals.
Human Rights Watch has described the killings as a war crime, and has called for an immediate investigation by the AU and UN. BBC
Sudanese rebels have killed thousands of innocent civilians, more than killed in Lockerbie and 9/11 events put together, so why are the Janjaweed and their sponsors (Sudanese Government) not on the US state department terrorist list?
How long will it take, for a travel ban and financial restrictions to curtail the ability of these rebels to kill and displace the weak and helpless in Darfur?