Genocide in Darfur

[vtwahoo]

Violence in Darfur, defined by many as genocide, has displaced 2.5 million individuals, who now face disease, starvation, and attacks in refugee camps, and killed 400,000 men, women, and children.

I bring this up because I am preparing to teach a fall course that focuses upon the processes of genocide and I am reminded that President Bush, while reading a memo on Rwanda, scrawled on the edges of the report "not on my watch."

We've skirted around this issue in the past but never engaged it head-on because it always fell just out of the bounds of the topic at hand. It seems that we have been, in that way, mimicing policy makers from the United States, our European allies, the United Nations, and the global community.

During the Holocaust the United States military had the option of bombing railroad tracks going to and from Nazi death camps. We didn't do it and it wasn't because we didn't know what was happening in those camps. Top officials knew and simply chose not to allocate those resources.

During the Rwandan genocide the US Ambassador to the United Nations, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, received a memo saying "we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families." She filed and ignored the memo. The few UN troops left on the ground were prohibited from intervening in the violence. When asked why they were shooting the dogs in the streets of Rwandan cities they answered that it was inhumane to let the dogs eat the dead bodies. It was inhumane to let the dogs eat the dead bodies but it was not inhumane to allow the genocide.

6 million Jews, 1 million Tutsis, 400,000 Sudanese.

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.

[Daedelus]

You've already answered your own question to me, it seems. Based off the wording of your question alone, I know your stance on the issue (ignoring the rest of the text).

I suggest you re-examine your stance a bit when you teach your class. Ask the questions, but leave it a little more open for students to form their own opinions. I can't stand professors who press their opinions on the class, regardless if I agree with them or not. I'm not saying that's what you'll do, but what you've said here sure looks like it.

[Tempest]

It is a pretty touchy subject when it comes to intervening into other countries affairs. One "could" (With a LOT of emphasis on COULD) say that the US's actions in Iraq and our very possible imminant action against Iran were motivated by the need to "safe guard the rest of the world" by taking actions that other countries with less resources could not. Of course with the whole missing WMD thing, Iraq basically turns into, in a much larger scale what could happen if we take action against such examples of genocide. It becomes a question of how do we justify military action? Don't get me wrong, these actions are in no way acceptable, but how do you convince John Q. Public and his representatives in Congress that we need to get involved? It may sound like a slippery slope, but if we take action then we basically are telling other countries that if we don't like what you are doing, Big Bad America is going to bust down the door, and reassemble your country until we like it. Things like this are the reason the UN was made. This kind of thing falls on their shoulders, not just the US.

[panasonic]

i agree, the us is not to blame for those genocides. it is the humane thing to save the rwandans, but under what basis/ pretext could the us use to get into that country w/ armed forces?

[Daedelus]

Agreed. American aren't and shouldn't be the police of the world. This is a matter for the UN.

[Libaax]

The US could have used UN to stop what happened in Rwanda or even Sudan but why should they care about some africans getting killed.....


US is a superpower who can make up excuses to invade a country,they have shown that several times.

They apparently dont care to use thier power if they dont gain anything in return.

[elric le tueur d'amis]

not a superpower for long I think,only the army is saving the place for the moment.

[vtwahoo]

You've already answered your own question to me, it seems. Based off the wording of your question alone, I know your stance on the issue (ignoring the rest of the text).

Although my position was obviously not something I was trying to hide, I'm not sure what answer I provided to my own question. Could you please expand on this point?

I suggest you re-examine your stance a bit when you teach your class. Ask the questions, but leave it a little more open for students to form their own opinions. I can't stand professors who press their opinions on the class, regardless if I agree with them or not. I'm not saying that's what you'll do, but what you've said here sure looks like it.

I'm sorry...did you just suggest that I re-examine my stance on genocide? Are you serious?

You have taken a discussion on genocide in the direction of educational practices. If you want to have a discussion about education, we can do that. I hold both a Master's degree in Curriculum and Instruction and a Master's degree in Political Science and I'm a candidate for a PhD in Governance and International Affairs. If you'd like to start a thread about educational practices that you can't stand, I'd be happy to comment.

[Tempest]

US is a superpower who can make up excuses to invade a country,they have shown that several times.
.

That's the problem here. Like I said before, far be it from me to look these people in the eye and say "Too bad, so sad." But the US should not just around kicking ass and taking names. By that logic, who's to say someone invading the US becuase they believe we aren't governed correctly?

Yes, entering Darfur, Rwanda, and Nazi Germany would have saved lives and that's great, but it is a short-sighted goal that would set in motion a foreign policy where every populace who feels they are oppresed will expect us to come to their rescue. Hell, why doesn't the US just take over the rest of the world so we can tell people how they should run their lives and then we'll never have that perticular problem ever again (in lieu of the massive list other problems that would arrise from that action). That'll fix ecerything, right?

[elric le tueur d'amis]

your logic is correct BUT is not true regarding to the human rights :
Africa had his own survival agriculture who permitted to them to survive in every situations,Europe and USA imposed their agriculture without testing it in Africa,now they prefer killing each other than starving,those are the results : we are responsible of the current genocides and we can't deny that;
Yes,Africans depends on Europe and USA but we can't let them die like that,we are the fools,not them,face it.

[Killfile]

It would seem to me that there are many cases wherein an educator's personal philosophy and political ideals merit mention, but should not form the substance of a curriculum. Affirmative action, campaign finance reform, national healthcare - in each of these issues it is for the educator to inform and the students to decide where they stand.

But this is not the case of all issues. In some rare instances there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Moral relativism falls by the wayside and humanity unites in one resonant voice proclaiming a very few actions and deads crimes of the highest order - crimes against humanity.

Genocide is one of those crimes.

There is nothing at all inappropriate about presenting genocide as a horrific crime and an intolerable state of affairs. Indeed, I would argue that any professor or teacher who presented it otherwise perpetrated a great disservice - against students and the moral duties of education.

As to the US responsibility to prevent Genocide in the world and what we could have done about Rwanda - the United Nations Charter (of which we are a signatory) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (also a signatory) are both very clear. Genocide is something which can not be allowed to occur. Signatories are bound by international law to intervene. It is not a matter of convenience or economic benefit but of duties - ethical, human, and legal.

Our abdication of those duties is the most shameful of lapses and among the darkest moments in US history.

[Daedelus]

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

That statement is what I'm talking about. That's the question he posed to us, and the question is incredibly loaded up front.

Our abdication of those duties is the most shameful of lapses and among the darkest moments in US history.

Why is it our job to start everything? Why does the US have to start 'making things right' all the time when there are TONS of other members of the UN? Yes, we are one of the superpowers. We are not, however, the UN. We do not speak for all nations. Our actions do not reflect what all members of the UN want. It should not be our job to get the ball rolling on every single issue that comes forward.

[Killfile]

t should not be our job to get the ball rolling on every single issue that comes forward.

Than whose job is it? It must be someone's. We're part of a very select group -- the permanent members of the Security Counsel. The President is referred to as the "Leader of the Free World." The United States is the lynchpin of NATO. The United Nations sits on Manhattan Island, within the boundaries of our cultural and financial capitol.

If it's not our job, whose job is it?

It is very much our responsibility to get the ball rolling. Maybe not to go in unilaterally - but to fight tooth and nail for the human dignity we've pledged ourselves to defend time and time again.

Jefferson promised it. Washington promised it. Wilson promised it. Roosevelt promised it.

If not us whom? If not now when?

[Libaax]

Thats the problem of US, the president is called the leader of the free world and america loves to be a super power but never uses that power for good.



Thats why some people including me miss the days when UN had power to try to help in countries like Sudan. Now that UN is a joke and US dont care there is a big void.

[Daedelus]

Than whose job is it? It must be someone's. We're part of a very select group -- the permanent members of the Security Counsel. The President is referred to as the "Leader of the Free World." The United States is the lynchpin of NATO. The United Nations sits on Manhattan Island, within the boundaries of our cultural and financial capitol.

If it's not our job, whose job is it?

It is very much our responsibility to get the ball rolling. Maybe not to go in unilaterally - but to fight tooth and nail for the human dignity we've pledged ourselves to defend time and time again.

Jefferson promised it. Washington promised it. Wilson promised it. Roosevelt promised it.

If not us whom? If not now when?

I believe I already said it, but I'll restate it again - 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. 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.

If we did everything that our ex-Presidents said, we would be in a world of shit. Yes, people call the President of the US the 'leader of the free world'. That doesn't make him police chief of the entire world.

I've said it twice and I'll say it again - we are not the world police. Yes, maybe we can bring some issues up to the UN. It is not, however, our sole responsibility to bring every issue to the attention of the UN.

[Killfile]

Ignoring for the mean time, the fundamental reality that the Executive Branch of the United States has, at its disposal, the largest workforce in the nation - bar none - let us examine this statement:

We should not have to bring to the attention of the entire United Nations every single human rights issue that comes forth.

Ok - let's give the executive the benefit of the doubt. Out of all the thousands of possible human rights infractions, let's choose just one. With 190+ countries in the UN and thousands of distinct infractions to choose from, surely the United States can bother itself to take responsibility for seeing that at least one type is brought to the attention of the UN with some regularity.

What would that be? If we had to pick one single type of human rights infraction.... maybe... Genocide? Surely the greatest of all human rights violations, the most heinous of all crimes, the most reviled of all grotesque war crimes would be worth our time?

But snapping out of our little fantasy land for a moment -- if every country steps back and says "it's not our problem" then the issue is never solved. This isn't how you make the world a better place. This isn't how democracy and freedom become forces for good in the world. We affect change by speaking out, by doing things, by taking action.

So I ask again - we are one of the leaders of the United Nations. We are a permanent member of the security counsel. We are bound by international law, our own constitution, and our solemn moral duty as human beings to prevent a Genocide.

Is it just that you don't think it matters? Someone has to step up. Someone has to raise the issue. Isn't that what being a leader is all about?

You seem to ask "why us?" Should we not be asking "why not us?" The United Nations is certainly the best answer, but like any deliberative body, it's only as good as its member states.

We are one of those states. Is it not incumbent upon us as such a member to push for action?

[Tempest]

You seem to ask "why us?" Should we not be asking "why not us?" The United Nations is certainly the best answer, but like any deliberative body, it's only as good as its member states.

We are one of those states. Is it not incumbent upon us as such a member to push for action?

Push for action? Absolutely. Run headlong into it before consulting the UN? No. We can't afford to jump headlong into it and hope everyone is going to back us up. Our military is spread pretty thin around the would to begin with. And given the outcome of Iraq, the american people are not going to be too keen on sending their troops to another foreign country while the rest of the World sits around with their thumbs up their asses.

Yes we are a major part of the UN, yes there should be something done, but the responsibility to do it weighs just as heavily on the every other major player in the game as it does us. We're not the only ones shirking a duty here. Everyone is accountable, and it should be a group effort to right this, not a forced chore just because one of the big guys on the team started without you.

[Quest]

america pushed headlong into afghanistan and iraq all by herself but now that a genocide needs her intervention, she stands idle.

its wrong on both counts: action when nobody wants it and inaction when somebody needs it.

[Tempest]

america pushed headlong into afghanistan and iraq all by herself

action when nobody wants it

It's that mentality that is keeping the US out of such actions and why we can't just jump headlong into international conflicts. When it's your neightbor or your friend or your child on the line, will you be just as willing to let them go out and chase bad guys across the globe just because no one else wanted to pony up?

This issue to me, as wiht all international military action nowadays is a big game of follow the leader, but no one wants to be the leader simply becuase they will be left with the bag if/when something goes wrong. Everyone else just falls into the excuse of "Well *insert country here that is most likely the US* did it first! It's all THEIR fault!"

[Quest]

everyone looks to america because she is the most powerful nation.
not only that but americans flout and brag about that status.

now that a nation needs its help, suddenly the appropiate response is to go "awww, i dunwanna seem like am looking for trouble...."?

[Tempest]

everyone looks to america because she is the most powerful nation.
not only that but americans flout and brag about that status.

now that a nation needs its help, suddenly the appropiate response is to go "awww, i dunwanna seem like am looking for trouble...."?

So whoever has the most power makes all the rules and it's their sole duty to enforce them? That sounds fair for everyone else.

You're missing my point. It is not America's sole duty to look out for other countries that have internal problems. That is the job of the United Nations as a whole, it's pretty much the reason they were created. The US shouldn't HAVE to go into this all alone, and if we end up doing so, something is VERY wrong.

[Quest]

yes i agree that america should be working with the UN.
the least they can do is push the UN to do something.

[Daedelus]

I'm sorry...did you just suggest that I re-examine my stance on genocide? Are you serious?

You have taken a discussion on genocide in the direction of educational practices. If you want to have a discussion about education, we can do that. I hold both a Master's degree in Curriculum and Instruction and a Master's degree in Political Science and I'm a candidate for a PhD in Governance and International Affairs. If you'd like to start a thread about educational practices that you can't stand, I'd be happy to comment.

Not sure how I missed this post earlier. Sorry for the late response.

For the first comment, you misunderstood what I said. I've since explained further.

For the second comment, thanks for the ePenis waving but no thanks. I don't care what degrees you have, to be perfectly honest. All I saw there was a bunch of "look what I can do". You can take classes on curriculum all day long, but at the end of the day, when a professor pushes their point of view on me (your loaded question about oil in Sudan making America do something) I get pissed. I tend to not want to listen to what you have to say.

*snip*

What would that be? If we had to pick one single type of human rights infraction.... maybe... Genocide? Surely the greatest of all human rights violations, the most heinous of all crimes, the most reviled of all grotesque war crimes would be worth our time?

But snapping out of our little fantasy land for a moment -- if every country steps back and says "it's not our problem" then the issue is never solved. This isn't how you make the world a better place. This isn't how democracy and freedom become forces for good in the world. We affect change by speaking out, by doing things, by taking action.

So I ask again - we are one of the leaders of the United Nations. We are a permanent member of the security counsel. We are bound by international law, our own constitution, and our solemn moral duty as human beings to prevent a Genocide.

Is it just that you don't think it matters? Someone has to step up. Someone has to raise the issue. Isn't that what being a leader is all about?

You seem to ask "why us?" Should we not be asking "why not us?" The United Nations is certainly the best answer, but like any deliberative body, it's only as good as its member states.

We are one of those states. Is it not incumbent upon us as such a member to push for action?

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? While I agree it's a horrible thing, picking out one single thing and focusing our attention on that is a horrible idea.

I never said step back and say "it's not our problem". I said that it should not be our responsibility to take care of violations as they pop up. That's the point of the UN (more on this later). It should never be on one nation to speak up for everyone, no matter who they are and how powerful they may be.

Yes, we are one of the leaders of the UN, an assembly of 191 nations. How come the other 190 (or other 15 members if you're strictly on the Security Council here) members don't speak up? Maybe their voices aren't as loud as the US due to the power they do have in the world, but I don't hear them saying anything (quick Google searching around turns up the UK talking about it, nothing more). Look at the emphasis above (sorry for the red, it was hard to see otherwise). We are not the UN.

I'm a bit offended you think I feel that genocide doesn't matter. Someone does have to step up. Someone does have to raise the issue. That is what being a leader is all about. It should not have to be the United States every time. We are not the world police (I'm getting sick of repeating myself...)

Run headlong into it before consulting the UN? No. We can't afford to jump headlong into it and hope everyone is going to back us up.

We did that. It's called Iraq, I don't know if everyone is familiar with the current conflict but we went in there without a lot of support. It's not going so well.

everyone looks to america because she is the most powerful nation.
not only that but americans flout and brag about that status.

Where is Singapore in all of this? Where is the outrage about genocide from your country? If that seems like a bit of a low blow, I'm sorry, but it's true.

[Quest]

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.

[Sortep]

America's problem is that we meddle in too many affairs worldwide and not enough domestically. Is the genocide bad? Yes, absolutely. But what is more poignant to me? The family down the street going through hardtimes, or some nameless faceless people halfway around the world. We can't start trying to be Jesus in the world unless our shit here at home is straightened out. When you're in a sinking ship, you get in the lifeboat AND THEN start saving people.