Genocide in Darfur

[Killfile]

Why genocide? Why not liberty, as in freedom of religion and to practice it? Why not welfare, as in starvation? Who are you to say that genocide is the end all, be all worst?

Why Genocide? Because the Nuremberg tribunals (of which we were a major part) the UN charter (of which we are a signatory), and the international declaration of Human Rights (of which we are also a signatory) lays it out as such. This isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of the international community.

I'm not saying that the United States should be the "global cop." Far from it -- that responsibility falls to the UN. What I am saying is that every state within the UN has a moral and legal responsibility to ask the UN to take action and introduce resolutions calling for action when serious threats to human rights arise.

Every country.

Including the United States.

But here's the problem. Have you ever worked in an environment wherein a task was assigned for several people? What typically happens is that no one does the task. Everyone assumes that someone else has taken care of it or will do so shortly, and it never gets done. That's what's happening with Darfur.

It's so easy to say "it is the job of the UN as a whole. We should not have to bring to the attention of the entire United Nations every single human rights issue that comes forth." But if everyone says it, nothing gets done. People continue to die, and the world just sits on its hands.

That mindset needs to change - and needs to change in each individual country in the United Nations. Now I don't live in Singapore, or France, or Nigeria, or Qatar - so I push for change in my country. I want the United States to become more active diplomatically at the United Nations. I want US to start asking the UN to look at issues like Darfur and Rwanda.

I also think it's important for the US to take an active roll, and perhaps the most active roll because it is ultimately our young men who will be sent in to intervene. The UN's military capabilities are overwhelmingly supplied by the United States. We have a stronger vote and a stronger veto than any other member state because of that. With that comes responsibility.

As to VtWahoo's foregone conclusions -- what of them? The US seems willing to buck international consensus when her own economic interests are at stake, but not for the lives of 400,000 Africans. We do seem very interested in the portion of the world that happens to have oil under it and we have behaved very strangely for a country that's not just in it for the gas.

You may not like to listen to what people with a strong viewpoint have to say. That's your decision and your call. I think in 20 years you'll find yourself less informed and less educated for it.

[vtwahoo]

We should not have to bring to the attention of the entire United Nations every single human rights issue that comes forth. If we actually did that, we'd have about six seconds left for domestic policy. Have you looked within the US borders lately? We're going through a lot of problems of our own if you haven't noticed. There's only so much time. Should an issue like abortion move to the backburner because of a human rights issue? What happens if, while the public is busy looking at said violation, abortion is criminalized? A possible result is the so-called back-alley abortion clinics. What about the human rights violations there? I realize this is stretching a bit far, but I'm trying to illustrate the point that sometimes other issues take the public eye, even if you feel they shouldn't.

I'm extremely sad for you. Why is it that you have so little faith in the American public's ability to care both about their own lives and the suffering of others?

It is the challenge of all nations to balance domestic policy with international and multilateral commitments. To intervene in genocide would not require that we give up the fight for safe, accessible abortions. The very suggestion is ridiculous. By this argument the United States should not have participated in World War II becuase of domesitc imperfections.

If we did everything that our ex-Presidents said, we would be in a world of shit.

What does this mean?

Killfile is not talking about press statements or even executive orders. He's talking about treaty commitments...more specifically, he's talking about one of the most important treaty commitments the United States has every made. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Nuremberg Convetion compel the United States and other signatories to stop genocides. In the case of genocide---and only genocide---they also compel unilateral action when necessary.

You consistently repeat that the United States should not be the world's police force. That repetition merely communicates that you've missed the point. We're not talking about a comprehensive definition (or re-definition) of US foreign policy (although I agree that one may be necessary and that's another topic for another thread). We're talking about intervention in genocide. If we cannot agree that we should use the might of the US military to prevent genocide, what can we agree upon?

[Daedelus]

well, singapore is just a little snot in the ocean. i dont think we have any power or authority to initiate anything or voice any concern. who will even bat an eyelid at our shadow?
is it wise to compare singapore to america at all?
however, america is in a position to do such things so of course people expect the big brother to do something.

i just check our only news site and there is no mention of genocide or darfur at all. our media does a good job of letting us see the relevant news only.

Nice. So you call the US to task ("the least they can do is push the UN to do something.") for not saying something, but then say that it's not relevant news? Since Singapore is a UN member, you do have the power to voice a concern or initiate something. Just because the US is viewed as the proverbial 800lb. gorilla ("big brother" as you say), doesn't mean everyone else has to shut up. I'm comparing Singapore to America because they are both member states of the UN. I forgot it's not relevant to you though, so I'm not quite sure why you responded in the first place.

I'm not saying that the United States should be the "global cop." Far from it -- that responsibility falls to the UN. What I am saying is that every state within the UN has a moral and legal responsibility to ask the UN to take action and introduce resolutions calling for action when serious threats to human rights arise.

Every country.

Including the United States.

Then why have you so far bashed the US for not taking action? Why aren't you bashing the global community?

But here's the problem. Have you ever worked in an environment wherein a task was assigned for several people? What typically happens is that no one does the task. Everyone assumes that someone else has taken care of it or will do so shortly, and it never gets done. That's what's happening with Darfur.

Yes, I have. The groups I work in work together to split the task up into easily managable portions so everyone has a share in the work, and the burden is not on one person. A real-world example was the initial invasion of Iraq. The US went gung-ho (which I don't agree we should have done) with little support, and now we suffer the brunt of the work. Huh, fancy that...

But if everyone says it, nothing gets done. People continue to die, and the world just sits on its hands.

So I guess we're ignoring the Gulf War, the 11 UN Resolutions discussing the situation in Iraq/Kuwait at the time and the subsequent military action by the UN to resolve the situation.

As to VtWahoo's foregone conclusions -- what of them? The US seems willing to buck international consensus when her own economic interests are at stake, but not for the lives of 400,000 Africans. We do seem very interested in the portion of the world that happens to have oil under it and we have behaved very strangely for a country that's not just in it for the gas.

That could (and probably is) be true. Imagine, for a moment, that Bush comes on the air in prime-time tonight. He says that we are invading France (just a random pick). Why? Some guerrillas are killing political prisoners in the south of France. The prisoners are all of French and German origin. Good luck selling that one to the American people.

You may not like to listen to what people with a strong viewpoint have to say. That's your decision and your call. I think in 20 years you'll find yourself less informed and less educated for it.

Actually I call this debate (which happens to be heated). You're voicing your opinions, I voice mine. We respond to each other as to why we think the other is wrong or misinformed. I'm not saying I don't like what you have to say - I just happen to see it a different way.

I'm extremely sad for you. Why is it that you have so little faith in the American public's ability to care both about their own lives and the suffering of others?

Time and time again, especially lately, the general American public have proved to be, well, crass. While the 2004 election had a 60.7% turnout, that still leaves 29.3% of the populace that doesn't care. Not to mention the 60.7% that did vote, voted in a President with now some of the lowest approval ratings in history. Yet Congress seems to be doing nothing about this, where they impeached Clinton who had reasonably high approval ratings for a President in trouble. Another tidbit (that ultimately doesn't matter) is that I work in retail, and I deal with the American public daily. The amount of idiots that come through the doors of the store I work at astounds me. While it may be a small segment of the public, they're still part of it.

It is the challenge of all nations to balance domestic policy with international and multilateral commitments. To intervene in genocide would not require that we give up the fight for safe, accessible abortions. The very suggestion is ridiculous. By this argument the United States should not have participated in World War II becuase of domesitc imperfections.

You're looking at my statement as an absolute, all-or-nothing situation. Unfortunately you can't direct 100% of your attention to abortion AND a human rights case. There is only so much pie to go around. As I said, and again in a hypothetical situation, the issue would have to move to the backburner.

Killfile is not talking about press statements or even executive orders. He's talking about treaty commitments...more specifically, he's talking about one of the most important treaty commitments the United States has every made. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Nuremberg Convetion compel the United States and other signatories to stop genocides. In the case of genocide---and only genocide---they also compel unilateral action when necessary.

Well, I assumed he was talking about statements the ex-Presidents have made. Didn't know you had to sign a treaty for something you, as a President, said to be taken seriously or to task. I've agreed with you that unilateral action is the best solution, it should not be the US' job to get the ball rolling all the time. I don't feel that the US should have to go in unilaterally for something that, by your admission, is something that all UN member nations should have a hand in.

You consistently repeat that the United States should not be the world's police force. That repetition merely communicates that you've missed the point. We're not talking about a comprehensive definition (or re-definition) of US foreign policy (although I agree that one may be necessary and that's another topic for another thread). We're talking about intervention in genocide. If we cannot agree that we should use the might of the US military to prevent genocide, what can we agree upon?

You've missed my point. It is not our job to unilaterally take care of the world's problems. Is that stated better? Is it not the job of all nations who have signed the UN charter et al. to get involved here? Why does the US have to be first out of the gate?

[Libaax]

Which world do you live in?

This is a world nowadays where only the big nations can change to the world.

US is the only interested in playing super power and world police,goes in countries without UN's approving. Since they act like this,why not the power for something good for once.

[Wandering_Mystic]

I see a lot of reactions in this thread to the idea of the US being a kind of world police. Interestingly, the initiator of this topic has never said that this is what the US should be doing. The fact that several people reacted in this way to a discussion about intervening to prevent genocide tells me that there is a certain amount of collective guilt for past actions taken by the US (either that or the reactors simlpy don't care what happens in other parts of the world, which I'm sure is not really the case).

My understanding of this discussion is that it is intended to bring to attention a discrepancy between what the US has pledged in treaty and her actions on the world level. Domestic issues hardly play a role here because by default we are talking about things on an international scale. (Hence, worries about domestic issues being sacrificed for international interventions like abortion vs. genocide don't make much sense as those issues would be handled by enitrely different aspects of the government and political process)

About the US vs UN issue, I don't think anyone is saying that the US alone needs to don a cape and trounce evil misdeeds throughout the world. So why does it seem like a sore spot for several people (in this thread so far)? There may be many Americans who (thankfully) do not wish to misuse the remarkable power that the US wields as a nation, but it is precisely because of that impressive power that we should not be irresponsible enough to ignore places and people who suffer from genocide. Most especially when said power was one of the factors in creating the enviornment that allowed such tragic situations to occur in the first place.

This is not about arbitrarily jumping into some countries back yard for the hell of it. This is about putting our political weight in the international world to good use (rather than questionable use in unilateral wars whose aim is obviously to bid for access to a valuable resource). Not by jumping in with our guns to enforce the peace, but rather by not being silent while the worst of human attrocities occurs when our voice alone could almost stop it entirely. No sacrifice in our freedoms would be asked for as this voice is raised, only a redirection of our global attention.

On the education issue briefly thrown around here about opinionated teachers, no one is without opinion, and it is impossible in my eyes to ask an educator to divorce themselves completely from their opinions when they teach their materials. When we are young, and lasting more or less until our high school years, it should perhaps be hoped for that teachers try to instruct with a certain amount of flexibility in the social sciences to help the student cultivate their own thoughts properly. But after that, you're on your own. No one can babysit you forever and if you get all cranky because someone says something you don't like, it really is your own problem, and it really is a potentially missed opportunity to have learned something. If a professor really has strong opinion about their subject matter (and most GOOD professors do), you can whine or ignore them all you want, but if you want to learn anything in life in general, you have to listen, and listen well, reagardless of strong opinions. That's what your own brain is for: to sift out and analyze for yourself what you are hearing in order to evolve your own thought process.

just my two cents

[Daedelus]

I see a lot of reactions in this thread to the idea of the US being a kind of world police. Interestingly, the initiator of this topic has never said that this is what the US should be doing.

To which I show you, from the OP...

...I am reminded that President Bush, while reading a memo on Rwanda, scrawled on the edges of the report "not on my watch."

(and)

Could someone please tell me this: would we have intervened if there were 400,000 barrels of proven reserves under the Sudanese soil?

Is it merely that we don't care? For oil to weapons of mass destruction (imagined or otherwise) and from 'communism' to 'terrorism' the United States will squander blood and treasure. For human life though, we seem dangerously complacent.

So I see it as an issue raised here, stemming from those statements.

The fact that several people reacted in this way to a discussion about intervening to prevent genocide tells me that there is a certain amount of collective guilt for past actions taken by the US (either that or the reactors simlpy don't care what happens in other parts of the world, which I'm sure is not really the case).

I don't think it's guilt really. It's something else that I can't put my finger on. For me, I'm just sick of people always saying the US has to solve a global problem. Hopefully that gives you some better insight.

My understanding of this discussion is that it is intended to bring to attention a discrepancy between what the US has pledged in treaty and her actions on the world level. Domestic issues hardly play a role here because by default we are talking about things on an international scale. (Hence, worries about domestic issues being sacrificed for international interventions like abortion vs. genocide don't make much sense as those issues would be handled by enitrely different aspects of the government and political process)

Oh, but they aren't. They're political issues. That's it. As I said before, I can't devote 100% of my time to covering international issues and 100% of my time to covering domestic issues. We don't have to separate bodies of Congress, one covering international and one covering domestic. Time spent on one issue is time lost on another issue - period. Fine, abortion vs. genocide might have been a bad choice. You get the general idea.

About the US vs UN issue, I don't think anyone is saying that the US alone needs to don a cape and trounce evil misdeeds throughout the world. So why does it seem like a sore spot for several people (in this thread so far)? There may be many Americans who (thankfully) do not wish to misuse the remarkable power that the US wields as a nation, but it is precisely because of that impressive power that we should not be irresponsible enough to ignore places and people who suffer from genocide. Most especially when said power was one of the factors in creating the enviornment that allowed such tragic situations to occur in the first place.

You're viewing this as an absolute. I'm not saying ignore the issue, but we don't have to be the whistleblower. Why not England? China? Russia? France? Why can't they blow the whistle once in a while? I'm not saying we have to join them if they do, but it'd be nice to see someone else who is a permanent member of the Security Council say something instead of the US bringing something up and then trying to get the other members on board.

This is not about arbitrarily jumping into some countries back yard for the hell of it. This is about putting our political weight in the international world to good use (rather than questionable use in unilateral wars whose aim is obviously to bid for access to a valuable resource). Not by jumping in with our guns to enforce the peace, but rather by not being silent while the worst of human attrocities occurs when our voice alone could almost stop it entirely.

I know it's not some arbitrary thing. OK, say we jump in here and take care of things. Everything goes smooth, everyone is happy. Review what I said about my hypothetical guerilla force in France. Should we have to jump in there, even if it's just a couple prisoners? Why are those prisoners less valuable than some 400k Africans? Also, it's not like this issue has not been talked about on the international stage - our voice isn't going to stop things entirely.

On the education issue briefly thrown around here about opinionated teachers, no one is without opinion, and it is impossible in my eyes to ask an educator to divorce themselves completely from their opinions when they teach their materials. When we are young, and lasting more or less until our high school years, it should perhaps be hoped for that teachers try to instruct with a certain amount of flexibility in the social sciences to help the student cultivate their own thoughts properly. But after that, you're on your own. No one can babysit you forever and if you get all cranky because someone says something you don't like, it really is your own problem, and it really is a potentially missed opportunity to have learned something. If a professor really has strong opinion about their subject matter (and most GOOD professors do), you can whine or ignore them all you want, but if you want to learn anything in life in general, you have to listen, and listen well, reagardless of strong opinions. That's what your own brain is for: to sift out and analyze for yourself what you are hearing in order to evolve your own thought process.

I'm not saying they have to divorce their opinions completely. I'm saying when a professor says that there is no doubt in his mind that Bush is a war criminal, that the Church is a completely evil organization bent on controlling its subjects etc. etc. that you've gone too far for teaching students in academia. I don't see it as babysitting or any other asinine comparison you want to make. I see it as presenting an obviously slanted view from a position of power without giving any credence to the other side.

[vtwahoo]

That could (and probably is) be true. Imagine, for a moment, that Bush comes on the air in prime-time tonight. He says that we are invading France (just a random pick). Why? Some guerrillas are killing political prisoners in the south of France. The prisoners are all of French and German origin. Good luck selling that one to the American people.

If you read international definitions of genocide, most clearly defined in the Rome Statute, you will see that it is a purposefully narrow concept becuase signatories to the Nuremberg Convention and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights are compeled to action, unilateral when necessary, to stop genocide. If you can't see the difference between 6 million Jews, 1 million Tutsis, or 400,000 Sudanese who were the victims of STATE sponored violence and "some guerrillas are killing political prisoners in the south of France," you need to examine and understand the atrocities that are genocide.

There is a difference between Auschwitz and the Oklahoma City Bombing.

While the 2004 election had a 60.7% turnout, that still leaves 29.3% of the populace that doesn't care.

Wow...not to wave my e-penis (which is an accomplishment of note seeing as I'm female) but 100% minus 60.7% gives you 39.3%

But that's not the point.

The point is that politics does not have to be a zero-sum game. People can care about both domestic issues and international affairs...in fact, if you look at most of the peer reviewed studies conducted on American political behaviors you'll see that the people protesting in the streets over the genocide in Darfur are the SAME people fighting for the preservation of safe and accessible abortions. For a more "pop culture" study, I recommend Robert Putman's "Bowling Alone."

You've missed my point. It is not our job to unilaterally take care of the world's problems. Is that stated better? Is it not the job of all nations who have signed the UN charter et al. to get involved here? Why does the US have to be first out of the gate?

Why? Because it's what we promised to do.

Why? Because the President of the United States said "not on my watch" and I'd like to see this "moral man of god" live up to that promise.

Why? Because 400,000 people have died.

Why? Because mothers are being forced to decide between two equally apalling ends: to allow their daughters to be raped or to allow their families to die of thirst.

Why? Because we are the United States of America and we have proclaimed ourselves to be the leaders of the free world and leaders protect the innocent.

I think the more important question is why not?

[Daedelus]

That could (and probably is) be true. Imagine, for a moment, that Bush comes on the air in prime-time tonight. He says that we are invading France (just a random pick). Why? Some guerrillas are killing political prisoners in the south of France. The prisoners are all of French and German origin. Good luck selling that one to the American people.

If you can't see the difference between 6 million Jews, 1 million Tutsis, or 400,000 Sudanese who were the victims of STATE sponored violence and "some guerrillas are killing political prisoners in the south of France," you need to examine and understand the atrocities that are genocide.

I left my quote in there for easy reference. I never called my example genocide. It is an example of a human rights violation, since 'liberty' (freedom) is a human right.

Wow...not to wave my e-penis (which is an accomplishment of note seeing as I'm female) but 100% minus 60.7% gives you 39.3%

Oh wow! A typo, you sure got me good. ePenis is a phrase used on the internet. It's similar to name dropping or an action similar, which is what you did when you rambled off your list of degrees that don't matter to what I, a specific student, feels.

But that's not the point.

Then why mention it?

(snip the why why why stuff that I've already seen a million times)
I think the more important question is why not?

I think I've already said all of this.

This is going absolutely no where. Feel free to carry on with the others, but I really have nothing more to say. I'm sick of repeating myself over and over.

[Killfile]

Daedalus - it would seem that you've stated your position and aren't interested in explaining it despite repeated attempts. Oh I know, you've explained politically why you feel the way you do and that's very well and good.

Despite repeated attempts to draw you out, however, you've yet to offer any explanation for your moral stance on the issue. Intervention in a Genocide isn't just about convenience, politics, and what a country "has to do." It's also about moral authority, human compassion, and ethical responsibility.

Everything you've said thus far indicates that you have none of these.

I'm not interested in why you think France or Singapore or Nairobi should be taking action in Darfur instead of the United States or why you think that the US should wait for someone else to bring the matter before the UN. You've stated that and I don't think that anyone is unclear as to what you think.

What I am interested in is why you value the lives of so many hundreds of thousands - or millions (in the case of Rwanda) - less than whatever it is that you think our government ought be doing. I'm curious why you are willing to dismiss the deliberate extermination of countless families just so that the United States isn't the world police.

There comes a time when politics takes a back seat to everything else -- when there is a moral choice and a political choice. At that time there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Choosing politics (the US shouldn't be the global cop, let someone else handle it) over morality (it's wrong to let millions die when we could stop it) is wrong.

So let's cut with the crap and ditch the political double speak. Why aren't 400,000 Sudanese or 800,000 Rwandans important enough to warrant a compromise of your ideal that "the US shouldn't be a global cop?" Why are their lives less important to you than whatever roll you think the US should be playing? Why are you willing to stand by and watch them die just because no one else has stepped forward?

Don't give me political bullshit. Why aren't they important enough? How many would have to die before you'd change your tune?

[vtwahoo]

That could (and probably is) be true. Imagine, for a moment, that Bush comes on the air in prime-time tonight. He says that we are invading France (just a random pick). Why? Some guerrillas are killing political prisoners in the south of France. The prisoners are all of French and German origin. Good luck selling that one to the American people.

If you can't see the difference between 6 million Jews, 1 million Tutsis, or 400,000 Sudanese who were the victims of STATE sponsored violence and "some guerrillas are killing political prisoners in the south of France," you need to examine and understand the atrocities that are genocide.

I left my quote in there for easy reference. I never called my example genocide. It is an example of a human rights violation, since 'liberty' (freedom) is a human right.

You're wrong on two counts.

First, your example is not, under international law, an example of a human rights violation. It's an example of a domestic disturbance and it is the state government's responsibility to stop the violence and bring those guilty to justice. Again, and I feel like -=I'm=- repeating myself here, genocide is narrowly defined because of its singular position in international law.

Second, although it is listed in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to say that "liberty" is a human right is to have only a shallow understanding of international law. Subsequent articles clarify this very broad statement. For example, Germany's constitution makes it illegal for its citizens to be members of Nazi or Neo-Nazi parties. This is an obvious restriction on political liberty yet does not constitute a human rights violation

This trap demonstrates the (flawed) logic behind your objection to US intervention in the Sudan. You obviously believe that such action would compel the United States to intervene in millions of incidents throughout the world. You're incorrect.

The point is that we're discussing genocide, defined by the Rome Statute as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group."

Killfile is right---cut the crap and answer the question. Why do you argue that the United States should betray its treaty commitments and NOT intervene to stop the genocide in Darfur?

[MsNomer]

Should an issue like abortion move to the backburner because of a human rights issue? What happens if, while the public is busy looking at said violation, abortion is criminalized? A possible result is the so-called back-alley abortion clinics. What about the human rights violations there? I realize this is stretching a bit far, but I'm trying to illustrate the point that sometimes other issues take the public eye, even if you feel they shouldn't.

The problem with things like the abortion issue, intelligent design and even the illegal immigration situation is that these are all issues whose times have past. We have legislation on the books either federally or locally to handle these things. The reason they keep coming up is that they are the skeletons pulled out of the closet whenever the government wants to do something they do not want us to focus our attention on. These are all volatile issues for which people have strong opinions to one side or the other. They are easy distractions. There is scant new information about any of these issues and so they are opened up for debate and beaten like the dead horses they are.

If you wish to cite domestic policy failures and the lack of attention being given to the infrastructure of this country, you would be more effective in talking about levees, housing, rising medical costs, minimum wage, rising poverty, health insurance and education. These issues are being overshadowed. Yes, there are discussions, but nothing is being done.

Genocide is an autracity that should not be glossed over and it is the responsibility of any nation whose attention it comes to, to do something about it. I agree that the US should not be called upon or think of itself as the global police force, however, as human beings it is our responsibility to prevent where possible the sort of genocide that was attempted by Nazi Germany.

Part of the problem we face as a nation and as a race sharing a planet is our propensity for finger pointing and the phrase, "It's not MY job."