Tuesday was world refugee day. Taking this into account I would like someone to explain to me why the United States ignores conflicts that happen in Africa.

There is currently a conflict going on in the Darfur region of Sudan. It has been going on for over three years. How many of you have heard of it?

1.8 million people have been forced to leave their homes. -that would be like everyone in Nevada being forced to move to California.

400,000 people have been killed- that’s more than the entire population of St. Louis.

For a business that lives by the mantra, “if it bleeds, it leads,” the US media seems to be avoiding editorializing, showing or even briefly mentioning the children that are being viciously murdered, the men that are being castrated and left for dead and the women that are being raped daily by the Arab militias militia and the Sudanese government.

The only reason it gets mentioned in all is that a Hollywood celebrity, Angelina Jolie, mentions it while news shows have her on to discuss the birth of her daughter. One would think over a million people being forced from their homes would be more important than the birth of one baby, but apparently not.

The United Nations, prior to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, called the Darfur conflict the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. If that’s the case, why hasn’t anything been done? Aid workers are in Darfur and Chad, where most of the refugees ended up, trying to prevent even more death and destruction- this time through starvation and disease.

Recently a peace agreement was signed between between the Sudan government and one faction of the rebel Sudan Liberation Army. So far this agreement has not resulted in any noticable improvement. And according to the UN 3.6 million people continue to be affected by the conflict.

Later this year the U.N. will take over the peacekeeping operation currently being run by the African Union. Sudan is of course, angry but what they seem to fail to realize is that U.N troops are usually pretty ineffective. They are basically sent in to help enforce peacekeeping agreements, but they have no real way to stop the genocide, and in some situations, they make things worse. While in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, troops were accused of sexually abusing under-aged girls.

Now before you start screaming, but they don’t have oil- that’s why we’re ignoring them, examine this. They do have oil, much like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, our two favorite places to send troops, but US oil companies are barred from operating in the Sudan due to a 1997 executive order. The order will only be lifted when the civil war stops.

One would think that would be motivation enough for our oil loving president, but apparently it’s not.

On April 7th 2004, Bush condemned the “atrocities” in Darfur. He said, “The government of Sudan must not remain complicit in the brutalization of Darfur.”

If that’s the best he’s got, no wonder the Sudanese government is basically ignoring him.

The United States has a responsibility as the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world to take care of its fellow citizens, no matter what they can or can’t do for us. We can’t go around preaching humanitarianism if we don’t follow through. The government needs to take every step possible to remove the leaders of the Sudanese government from power if they are found to be involved in the atrocities that are occurring. This means more than a slap on the wrist, this means more than suggesting they do something about the genocide. I’m not suggesting we turn the Sudan into another Iraq and no one wants a repeat of Somalia but what I do want is for our president to stand up and do something about this. Offer supplies, offer money, and offer something instead of just words.