So there's a genocide in Darfur right now that's been going on for 6 years. I'm not saying anyone reading this doesn't know about it, it's just surprising how many people don't. If you want to know more, go here: http://www.genocideintervention.net/educate/darfur (I don't know how to do the embedded link thing).
Anyways, an article just came out about what the Special U.S. Envoy to Sudan (Scott Gration) has been up to in the past 6 months. The fact that Obama even appointed an envoy is a good thing, since before this the U.S. government has taken...basically zero real action to end the genocide. U.S. diplomacy in Darfur, the only country whose president is a convicted human-rights criminal, is almost entirely in the hands of Gration. But Gration may not be taking the right approach. He's definitely leaning towards appeasement: his belief is that, "We've got to think about giving out cookies...kids, countries -- they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."
Agreements and talks are often the best approach for conflicts within countries. I don't like meeting violence with violence, and I'm usually all for peace talks. But Gration is dealing with a genocide, and numerous people have told him that the Sudanese government is decieving him in their promises for working towards a settlement. And just the way he phrased that quote is kind of...weird. In general, war-torn countries shouldn't be simplified to "kids". And I bet Bashir and his administration won't apreciate being acredited the mentality of a child who responds to smileys and cookies. Yet there is also the risk that a more agressive approach would only alienate the Sudanese government and make peace impossible. I'm interested in anyone's opinion on this: is appeasement or force better for making an uncooperative government respect human rights?
-Liza Brownstone
TGIFriday Morning Open Thread: Almost At the Weekend
44 minutes ago
12 comments:
I definitely agree with you, Liza. The way it's phrased, Gration's response makes him sound patronizing toward Sudan. But it also seems really naive–not what I'd expect from someone in his position. In this case (maybe the wording of Gration's comment just makes a bad case for appeasement), I'd say that appeasement isn't going to make the Sudanese government cooperate as far as human rights go. If the Sudanese government is bold enough to openly violate human rights, I doubt that a cookie/agreement will make much of a difference. More pressure should be put on the government. I don't want to advocate violence, but the US has already toughened sanctions on Sudan...what's next?
-Esther A
I would be cautious before picking sides and getting ourselves entangled into more civil strifes.
This whole Darfur genocide seems awfully suspicious to me. As a continent with a high number of third world countries, Africa is well known to have much political instability. The side in power is afraid of losing power, and nobody should be surprised that they would use force to keep control. This Darfur "genocide" doesn't seem to be an exception. I think this conflict, like so many other, is a power grab. There maybe cultural reasons too, but that would also stem from hatred of political rivals.
It would be incredibly unwise to pick a side and advocate for them. In such dire conflicts like this, we should be aware that there are people who would exploit our sympathy for their own causes. What if we impose sanctions and pressure on the government only to discover that we are wrong years later?
As far as I see, by imposing hostile actions to the government (side A), we could find ourselves supporting side B, who also wants to take control of the government themselves. Of course, both of these sides will defend their actions by saying something along the lines of "we're doing this in the interest of the people."
In response to Kevin's comment-
Kevin, I completely agree with you that Africa is a very unstable country and that we need to make cautious decisions when dealing with Sudan. However, I feel that we can not afford to be too hesitant. We must keep in mind that it is a genocide going on in Sudan. People are constantly dieing. I feel that in order to stop this genocide, eventually we will have to take some sort of risk and support a certain side in hopes for the best. (hopefully this isn't a complete risk, there will be some evidence and indication that the side we pick will support our cause) I want the U.S. to take time to deliberate and make a smart decision before it starts picking sides. However, if we are too cautious, we will be wasting too much time while people in Sudan are dieing every day.
In response to Liza
Obviously in a case as severe as the one going on in Sudan, appeasement is not the right path to choose. Though force is not the best answer as it can lead to violence(especially for a country that has been experiencing genocide for the past 5 years)it seems like it is the only way we have to pressure the government and have them start making steps towards ending all this chaos.
-Michael Chan
Well, I can say that I, personally, react to cookies and smiley faces (especially cookies, for the record)...but I don't think the Sudananese government will. So I'm going to have to agree with Esther on this one!
In times like these, I don't think we have time to "be cautious" and shop around. I mean, it's not like we're picking an insurance company or anything, if you know what I mean. While you put out a good point, Kevin, I may have to disagree with you a little bit :)
I read this and laughed, not at Liza of course.
"The fact that Obama even appointed an envoy is a good thing, since before this the U.S. government has taken...basically zero real action to end the genocide. U.S. diplomacy in Darfur, the only country whose president is a convicted human-rights criminal, is almost entirely in the hands of Gration."
I honestly hate to say this but, it's Africa. Remember Rwanda? Research it and there's your answer.
-Andrew Oxendine 3°
Thanks for everyone's input. I personally also think that more pressure needs to be put on the Sudanese government. It's ridiculous that the U.S. government is willing to take serious militaristic action when our interests are involved (aka Iraq and oil), but not when innocents are being mass murdered.
And Kevin, I'm going to have to disagree with you too, just a bit.
It's true we should be cautious as to when we do or don't intervene. I think intervening on the side of preventing genocide is a good choice. And I do believe that what's happening is a genocide. The people of an entire region are being systematically destroyed by a government. In the Bosnian genocide (which the U.S. did intervene in) 200,000 civilians died. 400,000 have died in Darfur. Women, children, and non-combatant men. 2.5 million have lost their homes and are in refugee camps or dying on the way to shelter. I'm not sure if you're saying there isn't a genocide in Darfur right now, but there are undoubtedly ongoing massacres and rapes. That in itself is, I think, cause enough to choose "side A or B".
I'm curious, if you did in fact feel genocide was occurring, when would you feel intervention was appropriate?
I totally agree with you Liza. I feel that is very difficult to not realize that a genocide is occurring in Sudan right now. I also agree that appeasement will not work to end Darfur. Prior to World War II, the method of appeasement was used on Hitler. Once Hitler was appeased, he immediately went back to rearming his troops and invaded countries once again. Just as appeasement did not work with Hitler, I do not think it will work to stop Darfur.
To answer your question Liza, I believe that genocide should be stopped and cut off in the very beginning, before more deaths and more problems occur. Liza stated that "400,000 have died in Darfur. Women, children, and non-combatant men. 2.5 million have lost their homes and are in refugee camps or dying on the way to shelter." These statistics are horrifying. If intervention occurred during the beginning and first signs of the Darfur genocide, maybe their wouldn't be such horrid statistics.
I think you make a fine point Liza, and that this issue is probably one with great risks if either side should win [appease or action?].
I agree with Josh in that appeasement isn't always the best choice. I want to bring up the event earlier this year where Obama removed the sanction on Syria. By doing so, Obama allowed airplane parts to be shipped to Syria, one of the countries that is supposedly an avid terrorist supporter. However, the effect was that the jihadists became more confident and, in some sense, made the US government under the Obama administration seem weak.
[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30642 and http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/05/20095815106605431.html]
Appeasement seems like a peaceful way of negotiating, but it can give people the confidence they need to continue what they are doing without fear of punishment. After all, who wants a government standing tall thinking they can continue with something as big as genocide?
Like Michael said, it is crucial for the U.S. to "take time to deliberate and make a smart decision before it starts picking sides."
" I completely agree with you that Africa is a very unstable country..."
Michael, Africa is not a country.
To everyone:
" People are constantly dieing. I feel that in order to stop this..."
This is exactly why this situation is so dangerous. It's extremely tempting to go out there and stop it, but let me ask you, have you heard the government's side of the story? From all the time I heard about Darfur, it's been from only one perspective. And acting on emotion without taking a look at the other side and assessing possible consequences.
The most recent genocide that we stopped was in Iraq when we overthrew Saddam, but was there peace on earth? No, what subsequently happened was a power struggle between factions. And we're still entangled in their civil conflict - although it is beginning to diminish.
Don't think that we won't get involved in a war just by providing support to one side. Remember how we slowly got involved in WWI? If Vietnam has taught us anything, it is that war against insurgency is one of the most difficult wars to fight.
Even Rwanda has lessons to offer about rooting for one side over the other.
A brief run-down through the history of Rwanda:
-Prior to the colonization of Rwanda, the two major ethnic groups, Tutsis and Hutus, were on fairly good terms with each other. Although Tutsis were seen as the ruling class.
-When Germany colonized Rwanda, the Germans determined that the Tutsis were racially superior than the Hutus; thus they ruled Rwanda indirectly through the Tutsis. Oppression was justified against the Hutus because they were believed to be racially insuperior to the Tutsis.
-After WWI, Belgium inherited Rwanda, and just like Germany, they too thought Tutsis were racially superior. However, it was Belgium that really solidified the racial divide by issuing racial ID cards.
-After WWII, Belgium tried to democratize Rwanda. They denounced the treatment of the Hutus by the Tutsis, and supported the Hutus in their vie for political independence and equality. Angered at the loss of their power, the Tutsis attacked a couple de facto leaders of the Hutus' emancipation movement. The Hutus, who are now in power, already infuriated at the Tutsis for years of oppression, began exterminating the Tutsis. That's when the genocide really began.
Now, you can see just how complicated genocides are. There's no clear line between good and evil. Both sides clearly had their share of violence. Remember that when Belgium and the UN denounced the oppression of the Hutus by the Tutsis, the Hutus gained the courage to take power, and later commit genocide. Starting to see the similarity to Darfur?
Typo from the beginning of my last comment:
"And acting on emotion without taking a look at the other side and assessing possible consequences."
Correction:
"And acting on emotion without taking a look at the other side and assessing possible consequences is foolish and reckless."
Post a Comment