Darfur

Delivering Darfur

I believe that the United States should lead the world in the fight against genocide. They have the responsibility as a Super Power to set an example for the rest of the world by not just saying that genocide is immoral but will do whatever it takes not to tolerate it. In regards to Darfur, I believe that the United States should take every measure possible to ensure that the rebel's are defeated and that the genocide that has taken place comes to an end. The United States should take gradual plan of steps to test Al-Bashir's poise and effectiveness as leader, help secure the southern region, and finally to set our sights on delivering Darfur would be key to our nation's as well as our global community's future well-being.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people based on their race, political or religious beliefs. Using that definition, I believe that the United States should use all its powers to help prevent genocide or to stop it from ever happening. They should establish certain provisions that would recognize the early signs of genocide and have consequences in place that could stop the developing of actual genocides. Although genocide is considered a crime under domestic laws in several countries, including the United States, many of them refuse to give mass killings the title genocide. The main reason is that once the killings are given the title of genocide, those countries are faced with the predicaments that require them to intervene. Other reasons that countries are reluctant to give huge killings the genocide title is because they don't want to engage in conflicts that pose little or no threat to their countries interests; they want to contain the political costs, and avoid the moral stigma associated with allowing genocide.

So when countries see countries such as Sudan who clearly have a problem with deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people based on their race, political or religious beliefs, avoiding the word genocide, they simply do nothing. This is the easiest, yet also potentially the most dangerous choice. This could turn the Sudan into another Rwanda, but worse with an estimated death toll currently at 400,000(Asiimwe) and rising daily. By doing nothing, we will lose entire generations of Sudanese people. A huge majority of the population have only known civil war. They have no working class or skilled class of people. What is happening there is similar to the problems that America faced with the welfare system. Many groups have received nothing but humanitarian aid their entire lives, and/or lived in refugee camps so they have no idea how to help themselves. The second problem with ignoring what's going on in Sudan is the possibility of a future terrorist threat. There are about 26,000,000 Muslims in Sudan alone (Witty) and there are many more Muslims in Africa than there are in the Middle East. Sudan has the oil resources that many countries that openly support terrorism against the U.S. have. Confirmed Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist camps have been running in Africa for decades, and after September 11, where did Osama Bin Laden hide? Not the Middle East, but Africa. If the United States is not careful about African diplomacy in general, we could very well possibly be seeing the next birthplace for anti-American sentiment and global terrorism.

Intervening only when U.S. interests are directly involved would be great if we lived in an encapsulated society. The truth is that, whether we like it or not, what happens globally will affect Americans nationally in the long run. In this era, our world is much too globalized and interconnected for the United States to think that problems half the world away won't come back to haunt us in the future. If those in authority posses that shortsighted mentality are selfish and inconsiderate of future generations. We as an international community won't be able to pass our problems off onto our kids and grandkids forever, the buck must stop here. If intervention did occur solely for economic or political reasons, the entire Islamic world would cry foul. The intervention would be seen as the United States entering another Muslim country and could escalate into being seen as America against Islam. The argument that the government should not risk American lives to stop tyrannical or unjust regimes around the world unless something can be gained by it is seditious. The United States of America was founded upon the ideal that freedom is not free, that its price is blood. A country that was founded on freedom and democracy, "liberty or death" cannot turn around and say that life lost for the liberty of the oppressed Sudan is worthless. It is shamefully hypocritical. America must utilize its great military, diplomatic, and economic resources to aid those who are weaker.

To speak out but reserve state sovereignty would be to condone genocide. If no one is there to hold a nation committing genocide accountable, than it is the same as approving of it. This strategy was tried with Hussein and Hitler, and it did not work. For the most part, this is the current strategy, yet it has not stopped Al-Bashir from daily committing atrocious crimes against humanity. To leave it in the hands of the United Nations would not work either because, frankly, the United Nations is too weak to adequately address the crisis at hand. They figuratively go in with their hands tied behind their backs because of all the constraints and protocol put upon them. The United Nations was powerless in Rwanda and would be just as powerless in Darfur. The notion of withdrawal from the United Nations would also be irresponsible because, basically, the United States is the United Nations. The vast majority of the forces and resources powering the United Nations are American. Withdrawal would cripple the United Nations.

To stand with the international community against genocide would once again revert back to the argument that the international community is too soft on genocide. Since the holocaust, when every world power on the globe vowed never again, the international community has never as a united whole put an end to genocide. The international community has ignored what went on in Serbia, in Iraq, in Rwanda, and in Sudan. As a whole, the international community would rather sit back and do nothing as long as there is no immediate threat and pretend that this moral tragedy is not happening. Who cares that innocent men women and children are dying if they are in some third world underdeveloped country?

The million-dollar question is, what do we do? The first step in bettering the situation is to be honest and accountable. The second step is to realize that this problem cannot be addressed over night. Rome was not built in a day, and Sudan

...