The International Criminals Court issued an arrest warrant for war crimes for the Sudanese President over the last day or so for its bad times in Darfur. Following on from that, the Sudanese government has just announced that it is rescinding all aid work in the Darfur region. I think its safe to say this is not a coincidence, and that they feel the aid workers are perhaps feeding information back that might incriminate their president.
Imagine a place where rather than how much oil a country had determined whether or not the US had interest in you, but how well or unwell humanitarian issues were dealt with by your government. Imagine if the US issued the same kind of ultimatum to Sudan as it did to Iraq in 2003, or to Zimbabwe, or to many other countries in the world with very very poor human rights records. Do you think it would change the behaviour of these countries? Do you think the world would still hate the US?
I’m not for a moment condoning unilateral invasions of other self governing countries, but if an international body that was a little less inept than the UN could agree that certain countries might face enforced removal of their government in the interest of the safety and human rights of the population, these countries might begin to listen, and might begin to find alternative solutions to genocide or oppression. Countries like Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Fiji even, could well buck up their ideas.
This of course begs the question, is war okay if human rights are being fought for, or is it never okay, and should we pursue other methods altogether? War has its casualties, but no one can deny that war was necessary against Hitler in WW2, I don’t think Hitler was up to having talks on resolving how Aryans might peacefully conquer Europe. Either way, an interesting idea that I’m sure will never come to fruition. We like our oil too much to be interested in human rights.
Articles related are here: (NZ Herald)
This is an interesting article that was forwarded to me and published by The Times Online, by Matthew Parris…….
Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem – the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset
Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it’s Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.
It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.
Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding – as you can – the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.
Continue reading here…..