Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Gracieb

G

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

http://www.genocideintervention.net/educate/darfur

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/darfur-genocide-without-borders-429338.html

http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/background

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080419/en_afp/entertainmentusfilmclooneysudandarfurchinaoly2008”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080419/en_afp/entertainmentusfilmclooneysudandarfurchinaoly2008

I linked those up for you. :)

George Clooney is a good man. :)

G

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Try one of those again...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080419/en_afp/entertainmentusfilmclooneysudandarfurchinaoly2008

Grace Calderon

Grace Calderon — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You’re right, he is a good man (and a good-looking one, too, hehe...). But the poster boy for the anti-Darfur genocide movement could still do more by way of using his (huge) celebrity to the hilt, for the sake of his activism. It personally dampened my spirits when he came out with that statement about boycotting the Beijing olympics as being excessive. Activism is a huge and tough effort that should leave no stone unturned. It should always be a no-holds-barred move. Desperate things need desperate measures. What is happening in Darfur is so harsh that no Olympic games can possibly soften it.

Clooney passed up this singular chance to use his name, face, and global celebrity to seal his much-publicized activism for Darfur. There, but not quite there - yet...

Now, let’s scrutinize what Richard Gere (another activist looker of a global celebrity) has done for his chosen activism in behalf of what’s happening in Tibet.

G

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

”activist looker of a global celebrity” - to coin a phrase, (*lol*). Personally, I think there are not enough cartoon characters in international relations.

Seriously, though - it’s a hard call - when someone does have a significant public profile and has through this the ability to shape opinions and influence elites - if they use it on every single thing they can, their impact will be lessened. Personally, I feel that cancelling/boycotting the Olympics would never be as powerful as allowing them to run on, to allow athletes to attend, because this ensures that the thorn-in-the-side of China which is Tibet and human rights abuses (not just Tibet-related) will continue to be a significant international/media issue and an irritation to the Maoist dictatorship which runs that country. I don’t think that boycotting the olympics is excessive, but I do think that strategies against fascism (and dictatorship of this sort is elementary fascism) have to be well thought out...

Madhuri Katti

Madhuri Katti — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

African countries can never really come out of conflicts if countries like China continue to supply arms with eye on rich resources of Africa. But why has UN been silent for all these decades? These countries are poor and have diverse health, poverty and food issues,there are multitude cases of gross human rights violations and abuse all over Africa. UN can make stronger interventions. Still countries within UN maintain a distance from African subcontient. International pressure and ground level developmental work can save African countries. We can’t be proud of globalisation, technology driven development and scientific progress when a continent is caught in a time-wrap of its own and is forever bled by dictators for whom power means right to rule and kill but doesn’t mean good governence.

Grace Calderon

Grace Calderon — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I believe it’s largely political. The UN has tried a few times to intervene but the relationship between China and the Sudanese govt is one of business. The UN may not be privy to the details of such a commercial partnership.

For Darfur, it is also about limited resources fought over by the inhabitants against the backdrop of an external force that is highly interested in what those resources may yield.

For some, this may look like just ethnic cleansing, civil war, internal strife but what this is all about really is business.

Personal self-serving business interests that will be protected - bar none.

Tom

Tom — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Very rightly pointed out. The whole thinking that people kill others because of ethnic or religious problems is crab. The politicians just use the gullible people, while politicians are used by the businessman, who needs market for their outdated products.

Can we dare to ask ourselves from where the arms go to the hands of these butchers? In some way or the other we are also a part of it. Somehow our products are subsidized by the bloods of common man. Movies like Blood Diamond or Lord of War have tried to bring it in notice of people but have failed. And UN which theoretically is the parliament of world is nothing but the toothless tiger totally dependent on some countries enjoying the veto power to pass or fail any motion. How in all this can we expect to have peace and justice?

Grace Calderon

Grace Calderon — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You hit the nail right on the head, Tom. Cash is king!

And the tens of thousands, including defenseless women and children, whose blood and dignity are spilled on the ground is collateral damage to this move to have a burgeoning business.

But when war is THE business, the defenseless who die are nothing more than plain collateral, period.