Georgia gets US Aid, Darfur Does Not

Georgia has oil, Darfur has dead people?

Just a guess.

Actually, that was rather flippant and I apologize for that. I think we feel Georgia represents a firewall against the Russians, kind of like what we did with NATO to try to keep the Soviet Union from expanding further into eastern Europe. Ironically, NATO is in the middle of this current problem - part of why the Russians took advantage of Georgia's foray into the separatist region of South Ossetia was because we were pushing to get Georgia into NATO. That and our pro-Democracy efforts were both firewalls to try to keep Russia in check.

Oddly enough, Putin (oh, and the other guy that is President) feels that they need to flex some muscle to reestablish their power and influence in the region.

Plus Georgia has a major oil pipeline that Russia doesn't really want to give up on.

Darfur, on the other hand, presents "no strategic national security interest." Plus we don't want to tick off Sudan's President too much because we need his help in the "war on terror." So while we don't look the other way, we don't send in our military to help quell the travesty that is going on in Darfur.

Clearly there is a double standard.

i have no idea

David has the spot-on explanation, I believe.

I'm sure he does. Especially the "Georgia has oil, Darfur has dead people" part. And the part about needing Sudan's President for the "war on terror." Remember when we needed Osama bin Laden for the "war on terror?"

The only part I don't agree with, David, is the part of about us not looking the other way. We are looking the other way as a country so rapidly that it's a wonder we don't have a
collective case of whiplash.

I think we should be helping Darfur too.

And I suppose race has nothing to do with this either?

This is probably the first time anyone ever agreed with me so I'll be daring and offer another comment.

Rhetta - To clarify my thought about "not looking the other way," I suppose it's a relative thing. We talk about it once and a while in an official capacity, but mostly we as a government don't do anything. We do, however, provide government funds and transportation for some of the humanitarian aid that does reach parts of Darfur and the surrounding areas where refugees have gone to escape the genocide. So we aren't technically looking the other way. But we're also not really do anything to stop it either.

Wilma - It's hard to determine if it's race or just simply poverty that enables us to not do more. The "national security interest," or other "strategic" interests drive so much of what we do. Georgia was a shot at setting up a Democracy. Our forays in some of the "stans" around the region are "strategic" both for both Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran and Russia. Apparently we haven't found the right incentive to do more in that region of the world, despite our inclination to do the same elsewhere.

It's all 'what's in it for us' as Americans, and never 'what's in it for us' as human beings.

I must admit it, I know next to zip about Darfur. Might it be, besides the points that David has made, that it is an internal travesty? I mean that Georgia is being attacked by another country, where as in Darfur, it is more of a civil war.

Again, please forgive my ignorance if I am way off base.

You're not off base, Cybergwen. I think there probably is an element of that, although that would be like saying that the situation with the Nazis and the Jews was a civil war. It's really only a war if both sides are armed. Still, I think that probably the fact that they weren't invaded by outside forces has let Bush pretend it's none of our business that thousands of people are being raped, tortured, and dying.

Georgia is also an ally in the Iraq war.

Ah, politics of the world!

I agree with David's points also. There is a racial element but that's mainly that the Republican base doesn't care much about people who aren't white and Christian. (Gross generalization with some statistical support. But this is how the Republican power structure sees its base and that is what is important in this case.)

Besides there is power politics at play here and we want to maintain the upper hand with respect to Russia and we don't feel that way about any of the African nations because we don't think they are very powerful.

Agreed, David.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

the way it is nowadays. . .

Bush's hypocrisy is exceeded by his absurdity. There are 35 ethnic minorities in the region, and Georgia has a number of them. The Georgian President has behaved badly to all of them, supressed political opposition and established an authoritarian regime. He has devoted his effort to building a military ( I expect the Israeli generals and hundreds of Israeli military trainers have got the hell out of Georgia since the Russian invasion? ) and foolishly invaded S. Ossetia? S. Ossetia was already "gone" months ago, Putin had made that clear : If Kosovo goes, S. Ossetia goes. The US knew it, but didn't make it clear to Georgia's President , in fact, Rice had visited Georgia a few months ago and stupidly flattered the idiot. What was she thinking?

World Politics

Darfur, like Rwanda, is in Africa, and Africans don't matter to the politicians in the West. It's as simple as this!

In 1994, they let almost a million people die in Rwanda. At the same time, they cared so much about the Balkans. I was a child during the war in Bosnia. I don't think I deserved the help from the international community more than some Rwandan kids, but some in the West thought I did.