Judith Miller’s swivel-chair at the New York Times was never officially retired. Rather, it was awarded to the most promising propagandist on the Times staff, Warren Hoge. Hoge’s task has been to take pot-shots at the United Nations; criticizing the world body for its lack of organization and pointing out its many imaginary indiscretions in the recent past. So far, the "Oil for Food" scandal has been a complete bust and provided no damning evidence against Kofi Annan or the UN senior staff. But you’d never know it from reading the Times where the slanderous innuendo creates a rich "tapestry of lies" as thick as Grimm’s Fairy Tales.
Now the UN is on to bigger things, like the re-colonization of Sudan under the rubric of "humanitarian intervention". As Noam Chomsky points out, "humanitarian intervention" was first invoked by the Fuehrer when he liberated Poland George Bush-style some 60 years ago. Now the mantra has been raised again by its zealous advocates at the NY Times front office.
Hoge notes the Security Council’s frustration with Sudan for rejecting its appeals to bring on the troopserI mean the "peacekeepers". Citing the massive carnage in Darfur which has resulted in the killing of over 200,000 people (numbers which are widely disputed) the United States is pressing for troop-deployment to stave off "genocide". (Colin Powell’s phrase)
America’s mad-hatter ambassador, John Bolton said, "It is something we have pushed hard for, and we’re going to continue to push hard, even though tomorrow is March 1, because this is something that we feel very strongly about."
"Feel strongly about"?
Has Bolton gone "wobbly" or has compassion for the lives of black Sudanese natives finally affected his thinking? If so, then where was the Bush administration when 60,000 mostly black citizens of New Orleans were shunted into the filthy, excrement-littered Superdome in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and kept there at gunpoint?
Bolton’s empathy is ludicrous, as is the administration’s palavering about "humanitarian intervention".
Fortunately, the Sudanese government is blocking the charade realizing that Washington has its eyes on its lavish oil and natural gas deposits. The UN Security Council has, once again, disgraced itself by taking part in this farce and providing cover for another American-engineered takeover of foreign resources.
Sudan knows exactly what to expect from an American-led "peacekeeping team". The capital, Khartoum, will be secured as will the oil and natural gas reserves, while Darfur will face persistent fly-overs with laser-guided munitions directed at errant wedding parties or civilian enclaves. (aka; Al Qaida "safe-houses")
Why would anyone expect anything different? Has the US made any effort to provide security for the Afghani people beyond the capital of Kabul, or have they been left to the mercy of warlords and drug-kingpins?
How about Iraq? How’s the U.S. security-program progressing in Babylon?
Sudan would have to be crazy to allow the US or its Security Council minions to enter their country without a fight. There’s no faster way to surrender one’s sovereignty, independence and moral-legitimacy.
That hasn’t dimmed the hopes of the imperial-scribes at the "paper of record". Hoge and his colleagues still doggedly support the colonial venture despite its glaring setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "Gray Lady" is forever sharpening its talons for the next unwitting victim of American benevolence. This week is Sudan’s turn.
MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org