U.N. 'compromise' on Darfur rapes

U.N. 'compromise' on Darfur rapes - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

In November, the United States presented a draft resolution to the United Nations General Assembly that would directly punish the growing number of governments and their opponents that use mass rape as a political weapon. The language, reported the New York Times (Nov. 17) would unambiguously condemn "rape used by governments and armed forces to achieve political and military ends."

But, as often happens at the spineless, rampantly disingenuous United Nations, the final resolution — after itself being savaged by many self-protecting revisions — stated that, in general, rape is not acceptable, but stripped out rape as an "instrument to achieve political objectives." There was no mention left of government "soldiers and militia members." Instead, the United Nations weakly says that rape should not be used "in conflict and related situations." Who crippled the original American draft language? Not surprisingly, it was the 43-nation African Group Coalition. South African Ambassador Dumisnai Kumalo said America had created two categories of rape and the African delegates wanted "to balance the text by making certain that there was no politicization of rape." Huh? By leaving out rape sponsored by an individual state and its armed militia, the sovereign criminal nation of Sudan was thereby not embarrassed, let alone the Belgian Congo.

Said a villager in Darfur recently on PBS's "Frontline" ("On Our Watch"): "I was carrying my little baby on my back, and they shot him dead. After the child died, they pulled him away and raped me." I don't think this kept U.N. member Gen. Bashir awake that night.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sphere: Related Content