BY DAN RATHER, Contributor
SO, LAST week 12 good persons and true deemed Michael Jackson not guilty of molesting a boy at his Neverland Ranch. Though now resolved, the Jackson case leaves a burning question in its wake: What spectacle will the American media and the American public turn to next for distraction from big, real-world problems?
Surely another celebrity trial of the century is just around the corner. But until the next indictable offence is committed by someone with a famous face, we might have to content ourselves with worrying about such trivialities as genocide.
This is an essay, so it might be easy to take that last line as rhetorical excess, good old-fashioned hyperbole. Except it's not. Eleven months ago, genocide is what the United States House of Representatives called what is happening in Sudan's Darfur region. Two months later, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell issued the same verdict. And earlier this month, President Bush spoke directly for his administration: "genocide."
MULTINATIONAL FORCE
"Genocide" is not a word that can be minced, but that has not stopped the United Nations from trying. Nevertheless, the African Union has assembled a multinational force to try to curb the murder, rape and destruction committed by Janjaweed rebels and abetted by Sudanese government forces. And President Bush has backed up his use of the word by providing U.S. aid to the region, along with logistical support for African Union forces.
There are real signs that these measures have helped. But when tens of thousands of innocents have been killed, thousands more mutilated, and millions driven from their homes, and while the killing continues, how much is enough?
This is a question for the conscience of each individual, here in America, and around the world. It became an article of faith, in the wake of the Holocaust, that genocide was the crime against humanity about which silence and inaction equalled complicity. And it has become an article of history that the world has become complicit in too many genocides since then. The memories of datelines such as Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda call us on our commitment to "Never again."
STRONG LANGUAGE
The United Nations, founded with high ideals after World War II, adopted strong language in 1948 on how to deal with genocide. But it would probably be a mistake to expect too much from the U.N. where Darfur is concerned. It has largely gotten around taking strong action in this case by steadfastly refusing to label what is happening in Sudan "genocide."
Slowly, in relative dribs and drabs, the world is responding to the crisis in Darfur. The European Union and NATO are joining the U.S. in providing monetary and logistical aid to what will be an increased African Union troop presence in the region.
SOLE SUPERPOWER
Will this be enough to stop the killing? One hopes so, even while one fears the answer. What has become clear, in the sweep of the past 50-plus years of world history, is that truly decisive international action rarely happens without a push from the U.S.A. Given our nation's sole-superpower status, this is probably truer than ever. Washington has taken a stand by calling the atrocities in Darfur by their true name. But without extended reporting in the media, and without commensurate pressure by the American public, we cannot expect our leaders to do more. And if our government does not do more, there seems little hope that the world will.
We can pay close attention to what's happening in this real crime of the new century, and how the world responds, or we can turn the page. After all, the next distraction can't be far off.
Dan Rather is a television broadcaster.
