As the conflict in Darfur continues claiming victims whose stories and numbers are both horrific and threatening, the international community cannot figure out how to respond effectively to this situation of gross violations of human rights.

A term first coined by the African activist, Marcus Garvey, the United States of Africa is far from a new idea. As a staunch Pan-Africanist, Ghana's first president, Kwame Nkrumah, was a strong supporter of African unity. Now the push for "One Africa" is being lead by Liyba's coup empowered leader, Muammar Gaddafi. In July of 2007 the African Union (AU) met to discuss the idea of one union government for the continent. Gaddafi traveled by land to drum up the support of the people on his way to the summit in Ghana. Countries such as Ghana and Senegal, symbols of democracy and stability, are in support of the idea. Among the supporters is another African leader with a reputation, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

Our long time allies, in this day is added to the long list of former friends, the french have not surprisingly been turned away by the near idiotic foreign policies of the Bush Administration. However, yet again we stand to learn a lesson from the French. The newly elected leader of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is setting a shining example of a how to build a foreign policy with meaning. Even as the leader of a former colonial power, he is showing the US how to have a policy in the African continent that is not all words. A policy that is not bent on capitalist gains and military conquest in the name of fighting terrorism.

Since my last visit to the White House webpage on the current "Africa Policy" not much has changed. Our current administration still lumps all African countries together and creates one broad policy to deal with all African governments. On the site there is a list of President Bush's "Africa Accomplishments and Initiatives." They include meeting with 25 African Heads of State, visiting Africa in his first term, providing the greatest level of monetary assistance, and promoting health, development, and peace & stability. Possibly a great list, but it all has to put into context. We need to look at what was discussed with African Heads of State, where he visited in Africa, what restrictions there are on his 'development' funding, and what constitutes peace and stability promotion?

We are back again to the age old debate of language and the way it is used - this time however the consequences are much greater. Genocide, how do you define it? In a Slate News, Senator Obama's comments are noted when referring to genocide. The article, titled "Getting comfy with genocide", gets deep into the definition of genocide and the consequences of our current use of the term.

From the When not in Africa. . . blog.

The correlation between violent conflicts and health may seem to be very obvious, but there is more to the issue than what crosses the mind. Everyone can make the simple connection that there is direct impact of conflict on being unbenefittal for the betterment of health. For example it is easy to read this article and see the obvious connection to artillery shells hitting a hospital in Mogadishu. Internal clashes and conflict creates a more difficult situation for humanitarian operations all over Africa.

Africa represents the highest rates of internal conflict and disease, especially HIV/AIDS. This disease has been used as a weapon in conflict. Many times infected soldiers are sent to the front lines to spread disease and infect the opposition, which generally turns out to be the innocent population. Populations affected by armed internal conflicts end up experiencing severe public health consequences from food insecurity, displacement, and combat. All this ends in a collapse of basic health services which are essential to the survival of the population.

Genocide continues, people continue to be murdered, lives continue to be lost. The next month will mark the anniversary of the Darfur Peace Agreement. The crisis in Sudan's western region of Darfur is only getting worse. The Sudanese government claims to be making it easier for aid groups to provide humanitarian support, yet aid groups are at times allowed to work and later denied. Under-staffed and under-supported African Union troops are being threatened and killed. The US deputy secretary, John Negroponte, sees this as the last opportunity to bring in a hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping force as hope seems to be running out for a solution. As Negroponte travels to Sudan he will be bringing the message that Washington's patience has run out. Ban Ki-moon says that he thinks a misunderstanding with the Sudanese government is holding up the peacekeeping force.

The genocide in Darfur is not contained by the Sudanese borders. Back in February the UN warned that Chad, which borders Sudan's western region of Darfur, could become the scene of the next genocide if action is not taken soon. The UN has recommended peacekeepers to the border countries of Sudan to halt the spread of the killing. The janjaweed is penetrating further and further into Chad to attack refugees in camps. The UNHCR (UN High Commission for Refugees) has expressed worries that the spillover from Darfur will exacerbate the ethnic tensions. The janjaweed had started the violence, but now Chadian locals have joined in and increased the magnitude of the conflict and the killing.

The title of this entry is a question that very often crosses my mind as I continue to read the news and stay up to date on the various African conflicts across the continent. How can the country with the most power sit idly as conflicts that tear nations and governments apart worsen? How can the country with the most power get involved in its own political war games and ignore the dying?

"If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at the one, I will."

So, here I am back from YP4. After a few weeks delay of getting my ish together I'm working towards getting it all done.

As of this second I'm:

Trying to kick off my blue print

Planning a volunteer trip to New Orleans

Trying to start a microfinancing club

and

Trying desperartly hard to get the contact information for Kofi Annan so he can come to my school for a lecture on the situations in Darfur and Northern Uganda.

So...........

Maybe I'm the only one, but does it seem as though some of us in the progressive community are trying to do it all?

I mean if you really think about it the progressive cause champions so many different areas of human rights; and if you're a humanitarian then you probably have an arm (or leg....or any other appendage for that matter) in every pot thats brewing for social change.

So I guess the question is how do we "triangle-arrow-circle" (one time for the YP4 staff) our way to a world in which we don't have to "triangle-arrow-circle" anymore?