I try to be proportional in my concerns about the world.

Am I concerned about Iraq and our thousand dead troops? Yes.

It bothers me that the kind of people who want us dead here have our soldiers as a more convenient target. Each death is a tragedy, even though I suspect many more Iraqis are alive today, and will be in years to come, because of our involvement.

But if a thousand dead troops is bad, then several million killed by Saddam bothers me much more.

As do the several million starving in North Korea.

And the two million killed so far in the Sudan (read for background), not to mention the tens of thousands losing their lives, or in danger of such, in Darfur.

It seems to me the UK, Australia, and US have been going in generally the right direction with this matter. But, of course, that's a "unilateral" bunch, right? It only becomes multilateral if we involve, well, France and the UN.

In June, France sent a "fact-finding" trip to Darfur, featuring a foreign minister named Renaud Muselier. Apparently, Mssr. Muselier concluded things were grave indeed, requiring drastic measures and unrelenting pressure:

France called on Sudan to forcibly disarm pro-government militias in the troubled western Darfur region if they refused to lay down their weapons, while expressing concern that tens of thousands of displaced people there were facing a humanitarian crisis.

"They should hand their weapons in and if they don't give them up, they have to be taken from them," junior foreign minister Renaud Muselier told a Paris media conference.

"The Janjawids' Arab militias have had a certain free reign and have committed totally unacceptable acts and massive human rights violations," said Muselier, who went to Darfur on a June 20-24 fact-finding trip.

He said Paris would not let up its pressure on the Sudanese government, which had promised Sunday the "immediate" disarmament of the militias during a visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

So the "free reign" is a problem, non? And we need "immediate" disarmament, non? And Paris will "not let up pressure", oui?

How things change in a few months, it would seem:

France opposes UN Sudan sanctions

France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur....

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.

So is that our "unrelenting pressure"? And support for "immediate disarmament?" What became of the "massive human rights violations" -- they are now "dismissed"?

Which is the "moral" position, France? The old one or the new one?

And what was this about your interests in oil, again?

What France wants here is truly tragic: Do you understand what it means to wait until "their country is pacified"? That means we wait until the fighting stops. Do you understand when the fighting stops? The fighting stops when the last victim has been killed!

This is what our dear, friendly "ally" now wants to do.

Regarding aid, France seems to think highly of her efforts:

France very early on recognized the seriousness of the situation in this region. She was quick to react. My predecessor, Dominique de Villepin, was the first representative of a Western power to raise the issue of Darfur during his visit to Chad, then Sudan, back in February. My own visit to El Fasher on 27 July was intended to demonstrate the support our country is giving to the determined efforts of the African Union.

The first emergency which confronts us is humanitarian. To this France responded unhesitatingly. Since December 2003, France has supported the efforts of the NGOs already in Darfur. I can testify they are doing a tremendous job. Today, the total amount of aid from Europe already comes to more than €220 million, i.e. nearly twice as much as that from the US.

But since when does aid "from Europe" mean France is doing well? Or is Europe suddenly a small subsection of France? (Heh, that's the point, isn't it?)

It would appear that statement is highly deceptive:

Give more to Darfur, NGOs tell Japan, France, Italy

Rich nations like Japan, France and Italy must be more generous in funding humanitarian relief for Sudan's Darfur region, aid agencies said on Thursday.

A coalition of British-based charities rapped Japan for giving only $6 million in bilateral aid so far in 2004, France $9.6 million and Italy $10.8 million.

"These are some of the richest countries in the world and they have been among the poorest donors," said Barbara Stocking, British director for one of the charities, Oxfam, working with refugees and victims of violence from Darfur.

"While humanitarian agencies struggle to cope with the overwhelming needs of the millions affected in this region, our difficulties are made worse by the lack of urgency of some rich nations in their response to the problem," she added....

They said Japan, France and Italy's record compared unfavourably with U.S. and British aid to the region, where Arab militia have been terrorising African villagers.

Washington was giving $206 million in the 2004-05 financial year, while Sudan's former colonial ruler Britain was giving 53 million pounds ($94.10 million) over that period, Oxfam said.

"By the end of August the United Nations reported it had only received just over half of the money it needs to help those who have fled the violence in Darfur", Stocking added.

"If donors like France, Italy and Japan do not provide that money, thousands more people are likely to die."

The aid agencies said hundreds of thousands of people from Darfur were facing starvation and disease on both sides of the Sudan-Chad border. "A human tragedy is unfolding," they said.

So France criticises US for giving $206 million, while France offers less than $10 million, and has the audacity to offer a glowing statement which masks that fact by hiding their donation behind the nearly tenfold higher one from the UK?

Talk about chutzpah!

The previous positive French statement came from one Mssr. Barnier, the same Barnier who stated, just a month ago, this August, to Le Figaro:

"There will be no sustainable solution to the Darfur conflict without a political agreement. It is imperative, as underlined by the resolution of (United Nations) Security Council (1556), to pressure all the parties, including rebel movements and Khartoum Authorities, to respect the ceasefire reached in April in N'Djamena and seriously take part in the negotiations initiated on July 15 in Addis Ababa by the African Union." ...

On July 30, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution giving Sudan 30 days to disarm the Arab Janjaweed militia -- blamed for atrocities in Darfur -- or face international sanctions.

The UN Security council agreed to allowed 30 days until sanctions. Once again, a country has failed to meet the conditions. And once again, it is France who has done an about-face and is now undermining the very UN security council resolutions they agreed with before.

Does this sound familliar? Iraq, anyone?

(Hat tip to Asparagirl.)

UPDATE: The UN again voted to threaten sanctions. France agreed. But what is the point of a second threat? "I really mean it this time?" We'll see if it stops anything, or even the UN makes good on it's threat, someday.

UPDATE 2: Now the UN appears to be implying the claims of unusual "massive human rights violations" were manufactured by the US for political purposes.