This rushing to rescue Yazidis raises questions of priority and scale. THIS is the most valuable thing the United States can do in the world today? THIS is what matters most in a warming globe of seven billion people?
Rescuing 20,000 or so Yazidis matters more than bringing relief to millions of Ukrainian Slavs in cities under siege by a proto-fascist government bent on ethnic cleansing? Well, maybe that's not exactly what Kiev is up to, but so far the pattern holds and the Kiev-inspired slaughter of innocents in Odessa offers a terrifying template. How is it better to wait and see whether greater atrocities occur when the alternative is supporting the Red Cross?
Rescuing 20,000 or so Yazidis matters more than bringing relief to almost two million Gazans in cities under siege by a relentlessly expansionist, rightwing Israeli government bent on ethnic cleansing? Well, maybe that's not exactly what Tel Aviv/Jerusalem is up to, but decades of repetitive behavior that includes repeated war crimes is anything but reassuring. How is it better to keep arming Israel, the better to kill Palestinians, or at least to kill those Palestinians who survive the lethal and illegal Israeli occupation and blockade, when the alternative is to support the United Nations and perhaps prevent more atrocities?
Rescuing 20,000 or so Yazidis matters more than protecting at least as many Americans in Ferguson, a city under siege by white privilege? Saving the Yazidis for now matters more than bringing justice to African-American Americans who have suffered their country's crimes against their humanity for longer than the United States has existed? How is it better to arm local police with the weapons of international war in a country where police already commit the atrocity of killing a black man on average every 28 hours?
Is there any humane excuse for U.S. tolerance of extreme suffering in Luhansk, Gaza, or Ferguson? Confronted by a constellation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, is the best the U.S. government can do is rescue some Yazidis and give a great big political shrug to all the rest? Is Washington simply saying: you don't really expect the U.S. to be principled in defense of the great values we so often trumpet, or trash, depending on the interests involved, do you?
Anyone here remember the principle of Responsibility to Protect?
Less than a year ago, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power was reminding the world of the importance of the Responsibility to Protect:
"" in 2005 the nations of the world met in this Assembly and reached a consensus that the protection of civilians against the most horrific crimes known to man presents an urgent summons to each and all of us. All governments have a responsibility to protect their people from these crimes, and all nations have a stake in helping them meet that responsibility."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
