[Peace-discuss] 9 questions on Darfur

[C. G. Estabrook]

Tom's question are serious and important.  (Karen, I think
they should be forwarded to Mr. Schwartz so that he can be
prepared to discuss them Sunday evening.)  --CGE

=================================

From Noam Chomsky, two years ago:

“Genuine humanitarian intervention would often be a good
thing. And it is often quite easy. Right now there is much
soul-searching and self-flagellation on the 10th anniversary
of the Rwanda massacre, when the West would not intervene to
stop it. For 100 days, people were killed at the rate of about
8000 a day. That happens be about the number of children who
die every day in Southern Africa from easily treatable
diseases. That’s Rwanda-level killing every day, not for 100
days, but constantly. And it’s far easier to stop than sending
troops to Rwanda. All that’s necessary is to spend pennies a
day to bribe drug companies to produce the needed remedies,
instead of doing what they are required to do by law: maximize
profits by producing 'life-style drugs' for the rich rather
than life-saving drugs for the poor. That would suffice to
stop ongoing Rwanda-style killing — again, not just for 100
days, and just among children in one region. Is anyone doing
it? What does that tell us about the alleged humanitarian
concerns over Rwanda? Or Darfur? Or...  What it tells us, loud
and clear, is that humanitarian concerns are wonderful as long
as it’s someone else’s crimes and we do not have to do
anything about them apart from striking heroic poses.

"It actually tells us a lot more. Consider the savagery and
criminality of a society that is based on institutional
structures so utterly insane that in order to stop permanent
Rwanda-style killings among children in one region of the
world — there’s a lot more — we have no means available except
to bribe unaccountable private tyrannies to save them.” 

[By "unaccountable private tyrannies" Chomsky means the drug
companies.  --CGE]



  ###