Contestación al anónimo

Hace algún tiempo un anónimo me puso un comentario en un post bastante antiguo. Comentaba esto:

Anonymous said...

En lugar de esconderte como un cobarde y darte palmaditas en la espalda por lo "bien que lo has hecho" podrías dejar un comentario en el blog de Meneses y dejarle así que se defienda, como hacen los valientes y los que saben de dialéctica. Pero igual eso te queda demasiado grande, no?

V.

Sobre este post.

Anónimo (o V), primero, perdóname por la tardanza de la respuesta, he estado ocupado y no he tenido tiempo de contestar. Primero, yo no tengo ningún problema con un comentario anónimo, o firmado como V, pero no me llames cobarde o digas que me escondo cuando tú firmas con V.
Segundo, el enlace al post en cuestión de Meneses está puesto, él puede ver perfectamente quién le enlaza y por qué. Con esto basta, de hecho esta es la práctica habitual con el que discuten bloggers. Cuando se quiere aclarar o fiskear con profundidad se suele responder desde el propio blog.

Magnifica columna de Mark Steyn

Es de hace bastante tiempo, 8 de mayo, pero merece darle atención aun siendo un artículo antiguo. Selecciono algunos párrafos, pero merece leerse entero:

I SEE George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have discovered Darfur and are now demanding "action". Good for them. Hollywood hasn't shown this much interest in indigenous groups of the Sudan since John Payne and Jerry Colonna sang The Girlfriend of the Whirling Dervish in Garden of the Moon (1938).

I wish the celebs well. Those of us who wanted action on Darfur years ago will hope their advocacy produces more results than ours did. Clooney's concern for the people of the region appears to be genuine and serious. But unless he's also serious about backing the only forces in the world with the capability and will to act in Sudan, he's just another showboating pretty boy of no use to anyone.

In 2003, you'll recall, the US was reviled as a unilateralist cowboy because it and its coalition of the poodles waged an illegal war unauthorised by the UN against a sovereign state run by a thug regime that was no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders, which it killed in large numbers (Kurds and Shia).

Well, Washington learned its lesson. Faced with another thug regime that's no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders which it kills in large numbers (African Muslims and southern Christians), the unilateralist cowboy decided to go by the book. No unlawful actions here. Instead, meetings at the UN. Consultations with allies. Possible referral to the Security Council.

Agreed. So let's get on to the details. If by "multinational" Clooney means a military intervention authorised by the UN, then he's a poseur and a fraud, and we should pay him no further heed. Meaningful UN action is never gonna happen. Sudan has at least two Security Council vetoes in its pocket: China gets 6 per cent of its oil from the country, while Russia has less obviously commercial reasons and more of a general philosophical belief in the right of sovereign states to butcher their own.

So forget a legal intervention authorised by the UN. If by "multinational" Clooney means military participation by the Sudanese regime's co-religionists, then dream on. The Arab League, as is its wont when one of its bloodier members gets a bad press, has circled the camels and chosen to confer its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on Khartoum by holding its most recent summit there.

Thank goodness for that. Because, as yet another Kofi-appointed UN committee boldly declared, "genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated". So fortunately what's going on in the Sudan isn't genocide. Instead, it's just hundreds of thousands of corpses who happen to be from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, at which point the so-called "decent left" can support a "multinational" force under the auspices of the Arab League going in to ensure the corpses don't pollute the water supply.

What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. Idealism asinertia is the hallmark of the movement.

Those of us on the Free Iraq-Free Darfur side are consistent: There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes, and the postmodern sovereignty beloved by the UN is strictly conditional. At some point, the Left has to decide whether it stands for anything other than self-congratulatory passivity and the fetishisation of a failed and corrupt transnationalism. As Alexander Downer put it: "Outcomes are more important than blind faith in the principles of non-intervention, sovereignty and multilateralism."

Las últimas informaciones indican que ya hay 450.000 muertos.

Progres y demás pacifistas de salón; ¿Vais a tirar algún día vuestras pancartas de "Bush is a terrorist" y empezar a reclamar un poco de acción para parar el genocidio en Darfur?