Edwards: good choice for Vice-President

John Kerry, the Democratic Presidential candidate in this year's US election, has made a wise choice in picking John Edwards, a fellow Senator, as his Vice-Presidential candidate. I always believed Mr Edwards would be the ideal running mate, I even think the Democrats would have a better chance at defeating President Bush had the Southern Senator been their Presidential candidate. However, this was not to be, but Mr Kerry has understood that John Edwards, the charismatic "good old boy" senator from North Carolina, can help him and his party capture the White House this November.

Mr Edwards, according to Mr Kerry, is "a man who understands and defends the values of America." He is generally regarded as a moderate Southern Democrat which could prove crucial in capturing some key Southern states from the Republicans. The South is generally conservative and although the Democrats used to be the dominant political force there, the political map changed considerably as a result of the Reagan revolution, with Southerners identifying themselves more with the Republican Party.

President Clinton, a moderate centrist Democrat, managed to reverse this trend somewhat and we will have to see what effect Senator Edwards will have on the South. The fact remains, however, that the Presidential candidate is Senator Kerry, who is regarded in the South as a north-eastern liberal, and not Senator Edwards.

One of Mr Edwards' greatest assets is his charisma, charm and his ability to relate to the average voter's concerns. This certainly makes up for Mr Kerry's lack of charisma and could also influence voters who are not too impressed with the rather sombre Vice-President Dick Cheney and the not very articulate President George Bush. Here Mr Edwards also resembles Mr Clinton, who last week described the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate as a political leader with "unlimited potential".

Naturally, the Republicans will do all they can to show that Mr Edwards lacks experience in public office - he was only elected to the Senate in 1998, and he is certainly a beginner when it comes to foreign policy, which is likely to be an important issue in the election - no match for the experienced Dick Cheney.

Furthermore, the Republicans will exploit the fact that Senator Edwards became a millionaire suing companies over personal injury cases - which doesn't exactly make him popular with the business community. Mr Edwards' point about the US being divided into "two Americas", one well off and the other struggling to make ends meet, might have struck a chord with the electorate during the party primaries earlier this year, but will certainly be mocked by the Republicans who will no doubt point to him as belonging to the part of America that is very well off.

Although Mr Edwards has flirted with some protectionist economic policies in the Senate (North Carolina is very protective of its tobacco crops) he is on the whole more of a Clinton-style centrist when it comes to economic policy. Certainly, he cannot be linked to the old school Democrats when it comes to economics and he should have a moderating influence on Senator Kerry, who has already toned down his populist economic rhetoric.

It is true that vice-presidential candidates do not win or lose elections, and that ultimately the electorate votes with the presidential candidate in mind. In 1988, for example, George Bush's (Sr) choice for Vice-President, Senator Dan Quayle, was no match for George Dukakis' choice, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, but Bush and Quayle won with a handsome majority. However, if the election is going to be very close, then the running mate could make a difference. I have a feeling this will be the case in November, especially if Mr Edwards picks up support in the crucial Southern states.

Why has there been no international outcry over the genocide taking place in Sudan against the minority African and Christian populations by Arab Muslim militias with the tactical support of the country's government? Forced starvation, ethnic cleansing and ruthless attacks by Arab militias and Sudanese government troops have led to thousands of Christians and black Africans being killed over the last few months. One million refugees have been created and we could soon be witnessing another humanitarian catastrophe on the scale of Rwanda 10 years ago.

Sudan consists of two nations within one country. The north is Arab and Muslim - which controls the government, and the south is African and mainly Christian. Over the years the world has stood by as Sudanese Africans and Christians have been subjected to persecution, slavery and killings by a government that is determined to wipe out their identity.

Until recently the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, the Arab League and Organisation of African Unity have all been spineless in dealing with this problem. Why is it that the West has been so reluctant to intervene in this conflict? Is it because the victims are black Africans? Are we going to simply sit back and watch another Rwanda unfold?

What about Christian solidarity? Europe and the US took military action in Bosnia and Kosovo to stop Christian Serbs from slaughtering Muslim Bosnians and Albanians, and rightly so. But what about doing something to stop Muslim Arabs from slaughtering Christian Africans in Sudan? And why has black Africa not condemned what is going on in Sudan?

During the apartheid regime in South Africa, the whole world condemned the oppression of the black majority by the white minority. But in Sudan, where blacks and Christians are oppressed by a Muslim and Arab-led government, nobody bats an eyelid. Shouldn't the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic States have something to say about this?

Surely the EU must have a conscience? Malta often likes to talk about Christian values and Europe's Christian heritage. I suggest that the next time Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Foreign Minister Michael Frendo attend an EU council meeting, they should bring up the question of genocide in Sudan and plead for some sort of international intervention. Malta can no longer claim to have no influence on the world stage - as an EU member state we have a perfect platform from where to speak our mind and influence policies on the world stage.