The SN editorial "Peace at last?" (SN 1/11), is a valuable, rare addition to discussion of the situation in Sudan in the American press. But I think the SN is off base to say that "The U.S. government should be applauded for stepping in to help oversee these peace accords."

Colin Powell has repeatedly called the situation in Darfur "genocide." The U.S. signature on the Geneva Conventions requires action to be taken in any case of genocide. But just like the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the U.S. government instead chose to stand by and allow the carnage to continue.

Now the film "Hotel Rwanda" can be made and we can all mourn the genocide, but we can't reflect on our past actions, including denying funding to United Nations peacekeepers working to stop the killing in Rwanda. We've now come full circle in ignoring what's happened in Darfur.

The situation in Sudan can help us understand U.S. policy in Iraq. After the main arguments for invasion were debunked (WMDs, aiding al-Qaida, imminent attack), new justifications have been introduced.

Crimes committed by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, with U.S. government support, are now used to justify this war with professed moral outrage.

Those who argue in favor of the Iraq war have no ground to stand on here. Sudan is a genocide, the crimes committed in Darfur are unspeakable, but it isn't worthy of U.S. action and attention.

This contradiction in arguing about U.S. foreign policy should be scrutinized, and we shouldn't applaud ourselves for "stepping in" when we should have acted immediately.

George Moyer
linguistics junior