Darfur

Its interesting that the 20 thousand-strong demonstrations outside the Labour party conference protesting the Iraq war has not been matched by any demonstration of any kind over the ongoing genocide in Darfur. It seems strange that such horrors should go unnoted by such good Guardian-readers and self-appointed champions of social justice while (or, more probably, because) they are frothing at the mouth by the injustices of Western imperialism. Or perhaps the fact that white western imperialists are probably the only people capable of preventing the violence between oppressed African blacks is too much for them to contemplate.

Perhaps, though, they are merely following the example of their parents. Back in the seventies a generation of leftwingers stood by and watched as the horrors of Cambodia unfolded, all the while patting themselves on the back for having gotten America to withdraw from Indo-China in the first place, thus leading to the conditions whereby one fifth of Cambodia were murdered. That the evacuation of Vietnam was immediately (and remains) canonised as unquestionably good is one the things that supports the ongoing anti-Iraq war demonstrations, despite the fact that, regardless of one's opinions of the war in the first place, it would be calamitous for the people of Iraq if the West withdrew.
Intervention in Darfur, by constrast, is probably the only option in saving the lives of its people. Its not going to happen though. Why?
a) the UN is toothless
b) China has oil interests in Sudan
c) The West is already over-stretched.

It's interesting, after all the bleating about oil interests supposedly involved in Iraq, and the uncritical view of the UN held by those demonstrating at the Labour conference, that they have nothing to say on these matters.
But then again, not.
The left is nothing if not shallow.