These days I am hardly ever inspired to write to the Times. It is tough to get published, and besides I can use this blog to share my opinions with anyone who cares to read them.
But a commentary by Alan J. Kuperman in today's paper caused me to write. Kuperman begins with a brave exposition of how the situation in Darfur is more complicated than it seems. However, he loses moral standing when he suggests that the Sudanese government--which is responsible for genocide, after all--be allowed to handle "recalcitrant rebels" in the wake of this month's peace accord.
Here is my letter:
To the Editor:
Alan J. Kuperman's commentary about the ongoing genocide in Darfur forces activists about this issue to ask themselves tough questions. The calculated struggles among Darfur's rebel groups, following this month's peace accord, do indeed reveal that this is not a "simple morality tale." Furthermore, Osama bin Laden's recent attempt to stimulate jihadism in response to possible UN action in Darfur reveal the complications inherent in standing up to genocide. The clarion call of "never again" must take account of such unintended consequences.
But Kuperman moves from courageous to outrageous in his call to let Sudan's army deal with any "recalcitrant rebels." Are the woman and children being raped and murdered by the janjaweed recalcitrant? Even if we admit that the Darfuri genocide occurred in response to rebel provocations, it is nevertheless a government-supported extermination. It is morally odious to suggest that we now rely on the Sudanese government's forces to solve this problem.