Thursday, October 11, 2007

A sobering thought

for the debate on Darfur, Burma, and even Iraq is hidden within Peacebang's post, Panzi Hospital in which she referrences a New York Time article, Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War . She is quite right to use terms such as "evil" and "Satan": "BUKAVU, Congo — Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist, cannot bear to listen to the stories his patients tell him anymore. Every day, 10 new women and girls who have been raped show up at his hospital. Many have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair... Eastern Congo is going through another one of its convulsions of violence, and this time it seems that women are being systematically attacked on a scale never before seen here. According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country."

What does this have to do with Darfur, Burma, and Iraq? This quote: "The attacks go on despite the presence of the largest United Nations peacekeeping force in the world, with more than 17,000 troops."

We are already on record calling for UN intervention in Darfur, and many are calling for the same in Burma. The more responsible of the "Get out of Iraq now, not another dollar, not another life" crowd propose having the UN intervene to stop the certain bloodbath that would follow such a precipitous withdrawl. (Rev. Sinkford doesn't mention it in his fax to our congressmen, nor does it appear in the petition he asks us to sign- I guess he isn't worried about the aftermath) The situation in Congo shows just how realistic these calls are; if the largest UN force in the world can't stop mass rape in the Congo, how are they going to do anything in all these other situations? Do our calls for UN intervention really accomplish anything other than making us feel good for having "done something"?

7 comments:

DJD said...

How the UUA can support such a corrupt organization such as the U.N. is beyond me. Maybe the UUA is corrupt too...oops, I didn't say that.

Robin Edgar said...

Yes you did sat that, and I second that e-motion. . .

In fact there is no question that the UUA is corrupt in some ways. The question is just how much corruption exists and how widespread it is.

Joel Monka said...

Goddess, give me patience. The topic is the incompetence of the UN, and/or the foolishness of placing your hopes in an organization demonstrably not up to it. Make some attempt to stay on topic or don't post.

Robin Edgar said...

UN or UUA

What's the diff when it comes to the topic of incompetence, and/or the foolishness of placing your hopes in an organization demonstrably not up to it?

In any case Joel, it should be obvious that my comment was in direct response to djd's comment which suggested that the UUA is corrupt too. . . Or is your comment directed at djd too?

Joel Monka said...

As the Bard never said, "A pox on both your comments!" But since you ask, Robin, yours is the greater offense, as it was not the first time, nor the second.

And anyway, as an amateur theologian, you should know that Adam pretty much spoiled the "But Lord, she tempted me" excuse for everyone.

Robin Edgar said...

Actually I would say your own offense is by far the greatest Joel.

If you are not sure what your own offence is here's a clue. . .

"Hearsay evidence"

DJD said...

Joel, I meant no offense. But I agree that it's foolish for the UUA to support the UN.

I still, think, however, that the UUA is as crooked as a politician.