The Latest on Darfur

I've been following the tragic situation in Darfur, Sudan for about a year and a half now, and despite increased international attention, the situation seems to only be getting worse. I was somewhat hopeful about a year ago when the New York Times and Washington Post among other prominent newspapers turned the spotlight on the ongoing suffering in that region. The media attention caused members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, to weigh in on the tragedy from the floor of Congress. Unfortunately, it seems their impassioned speeches were only for the benefit of a C-Span sound-bite in the hopes of making the evening news because as far as I can see, Congress has done next to nothing in respect to Darfur in the last year.

The Bush administration took the bold move of labeling the atrocities in Darfur as "genocide" and vowed to take steps to ameliorate the situation. To the administration’s credit, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick has actually been on the ground in Darfur four times in the last year and the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has been pressuring the UN to get more involved. Nevertheless, nothing concrete has been done. They talk a good game, but in the end, things are clearly getting worse.

Currently, the only organization that can claim to be really taking action in Darfur is the African Union, which has maintained a small force in the region for quite some time. The AU's 760 troops are hardly enough to bring about peace in an area the size of Italy - even with some airborne assistance from NATO - but at least they're giving it a shot. Credit can also be given to Nigeria, which is positioning itself as a major political player in Africa, a role heretofore played almost exclusively by the South Africans. By hosting peace talks among the government and the warring groups, the Nigerians have been stepping up to the plate in terms of finding African solutions to African problems.

Back to the US, there are finally talks in the UN of getting some UN boots on the ground in Darfur. The UN already has a number of blue helmets in southern Sudan, but it currently has no presence in Darfur. Championing UN involvement in the region is the United States. Like always, the main hurdles to any action taken by the Security Council are Russia and China (and sometimes France). I don't know where Russia stands on the issue, but I just read recently that the Chinese are beginning to warm up to the idea. If China lends its support, or at least doesn't oppose it, it would be a huge step in the right direction. But even if we got the support of all of the permanent members of the Council, it would be quite some time before we began to see UN troops on the ground. First, they would have to assess the necessary level of involvement, and then they would have to get countries to provide troops and then, of course, they would have to figure out how they're going to pay for it. It could be another year before all of the details are worked out, and in the meantime, Darfurians will continue to be raped and murdered and forced from their homes. Until the issues are worked out, there is some talk of simply providing African Union troops with blue helmets and maybe providing increased logistical and air support from NATO and possibly the European Union. There is also talk of NATO simply taking over operations there. I'd be interested in seeing whether the French would go along with that. Even though they're no longer really a part of NATO, I'm sure they would make their voices heard if they oppose. With Merkel running things in Berlin now, I'm sure gaining German support won't be an issue.

Originally, I fully commended the Bush Administration in finally doing something right and using its might and power and resources to actually try to make the world a little more peaceful instead of pissing everybody off, which it's so good at doing. Then, however, I read this article out of China from the People's Daily Online . I used to live in China and while I definitely know that anything coming from the Chinese government or the Chinese media (which are basically the same thing) needs to taken with a gigantic grain of salt, the article does raise some interesting points about the motivation behind the Administration's support for greater involvement in Darfur. It cites the usual motivations that have become all too common with Bush, i.e. the pursuit of oil and the dismantling of Arab society. Maybe the People's Daily is right, but this time, I don't really care so much. As long as the Administration does the right thing, I'm not too concerned with the real motivations behind it. That statement might come back to bite me in the ass one day, but so be it.

Here are a couple more interesting links to info about Darfur. NPR did a very interesting interview with Brian Steidle, a former US Marine who was a consultant with the African Union and now travels around the US trying to drum up support for involvement among US politicians. For a good current snapshot of what’s going on, check out this article in the Economist .

Give Credit where Credit is Due

I spend a significant amount of my workday scanning the New York Times and Guardian Unlimited for international and political news. I came across this article in the Times on January 30. Time and time again, it seems that the Republicans nowadays are playing the game so much better than Democrats. I am really impressed by their ability to organize around an issue and then stick the plan for indefinite periods of time. Although I rarely, if ever, agree with the end goal of their perseverance, I find it remarkable nevertheless. This article describes how the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court had been in the works since 1982! I find that to be especially amazing in light of the fact that they had been planning for this since I was only three years old. I can't even plan my outfit for work tomorrow, and these guys have been working towards this one goal for the last 24 years!

I was hoping to insert a link to the Times, but that article has already been archived and they charge 4 bucks to view it. So here's a link to the Yurica Report, which was smart enough to copy and paste the whole article on their site before the NYT archived it.

By the way, I'd like you all to make special note that this entry marks my very first crack at writing in HTML. It's actually so much easier than I expected, especially with the help of my man Jeeves.

Black Fiction

So what’s the deal with the current state of black fiction? Perhaps I’m ill-informed, but it seems to me that contemporary black fiction is lacking a certain… gravitas, and I can’t quite figure out why that is the case. To illustrate my point, I was in Borders a couple months ago. Being the dork that I am, I subscribe to their online newsletter. The cool thing about the newsletter, however, is that they usually include coupons. I had just finished reading a novel and was, therefore, in need of a new one when I received a coupon in my inbox. In search of fiction by an African-American author, I walked to Borders during my lunch hour. When I arrived, I saw that there was an entire section devoted to Black fiction. Initially, I didn’t quite know how I felt about that. I wondered why they felt the need to segregate African-American fiction from all other fiction. Then, I appreciated the separation when I realized that it meant that I didn’t need to sift through all of the other titles when it was only novels by African-American authors that I was interested in. And I assume that’s why Borders does it that way. There must be a great enough demand for African-American fiction that it warrants its own section... but I’ve really drifted from the point. Considering that they have a whole section devoted to Black fiction, I assumed that there would be a really good selection. I was sorely disappointed. About 75% of the books had titles such as "Bling Bling" or "Bitch, You Better Have my Money!" or "Don't Make me Cut You!" or something along those lines. There were, of course, many notable books, but the selection as a whole was nevertheless disheartening. After scanning through all of the titles, I did finally settle on a novel and was very pleased with my selection.

This experience makes me wonder about the state of the African-American community as a whole. What does it say about our community when the major themes pervading our literature center around sex, violence, gang membership and the like. Is that all that we care to read about? Are those the only themes that are “Black enough” to garner our support? Or is it that those are the only themes that major publishing houses care to bring to market? Is this a reflection of us, or is it a reflection of society’s image of us? I don’t know the answer to that question. Of course, I would love to put the blame squarely on dominant (i.e. White) society, but I don’t know if that’s actually the case. Perhaps African-Americans today just like reading frivolous literature. If there weren’t a market for it, it wouldn’t be on the shelves. Or maybe African-Americans only read these works because that is the only literature readily available. I really don’t know, but I guess just as long as people are reading something, I can’t be too mad.

Maybe this all just means that I need to stay away from places like Borders and Barnes & Noble when I’m in the mood for works by African-American authors. There are many very well stocked Black bookstores, including Marcus Books here in San Francisco, that have an excellent selection. It’s just so hard to pass up that 20% off coupon waiting in my inbox each week.

While we’re on the subject, here’s a few of my favorite novels by African-American authors (in no particular order):

Another Country, James Baldwin
Invisible Man, Ralph Ellison
Song of Solomon, Toni Morrison
The Darkest Child, Delores Phillips
The Color Purple, Alice Walker