Monday, September 11, 2006

Only 3 weeks to "Save" Darfur?!


One of today's NYT's editorial reads: "Three Weeks to Save Darfur".
Oh really? Wow...a timetable? What a concept. Darfur will not be saved because there is no international will to save it. There is a lot of talk, but not much action. To boot, the African Union peacekeeping forces are set to leave Darfur at the end of this month. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has made it clear that he will not allow UN peacekeeping forces into his country.
So where does that leave the people of Darfur? Probably with more of the same as in the picture above. (this picture was taken by a colleague of mine who was working with the UN in Sudan during the summer months -- the picture shows a village in Darfur shortly after a Janjaweed attack)...

13 comments:

Alex K said...

As i recall, the reason orginizations such as the UN were founded to help prevent genocides from happening again, particularly after the horrors of the holocaust. The current US govenment has claimed the reason they're in Iraq is for human aid, yet both groups have done little to nothing to help halt this terrible atrocity. It's understandable to a degree that the US military is thin-spread across the world, and we've blown a huge amount of cash on the military, but something needs to be done!

MadMax said...

Are you suggesting Alex K that the United States should send troops to protect the people of Darfur?

stacy h said...

It seems like Alex K would prefer to have UN peacekeeping forces sent to Sudan (correct me if I'm wrong), but as Dr. D noted, President Omar al-Bashir will not let them in his country. The US has itself in a hard place because of negative opinions about being in Iraq. Those negative opinions are not just found in the US itself, but also throughout the world. However, should the US sit back like it did with Rwanda? As I recall, US officials refused to call Rwanda a genocide; however, many US officials have acknowledged the genocide in Darfur. It is our obligation to step in and help those who need it? Or do we step back like we did with Rwanda in order to avoid another incident like we witnessed with Somalia?

MadMax said...

The UN is an inept institution that is unlikely to put troops in Darfur without US involvement. When asked by reporters why the UN was not doing anything in Darfur, Kofi Anan said that they couldn't do anything without the support of US troops. Apparently the UN DOES consider the USA the world's police force. I think that US involvement would be a disaster to our country
Why in the world do I want to have my tax dollars wasted in Darfur? There is nothing to be gained by going to Darfur for the U.S. It will not protect our nation. That is what the military is for. Let somebody else be the worlds policemen. Let our military protect me. If those interests coincide with what the U.N. wants, so be it. But if they don't, screw the U.N.

Alex K said...

I'm simply saying that someone needs to do something. We sat and watched as the Armenian's were decimated in their genocide (1915-1917), and than waited as the holocaust began, taking the US nearly 5 years to take any sort of action. To the best of my knowledge, we didn't do a thing during the Khmer Rouge atrocities, and as Stacy pointed out, we stood by and watched during Rwanda. What i'm saying is that sitting by and watching another group of people get systematically wiped off the Earth is almost as bad as commiting a genocide ourselves!

MadMax said...

American intervention in Sudan is not the answer. The United States government has no business sending its soldiers, who have made an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, to be shot at in a weak, impoverished country half the world away? By what right does it tax the American people to address overseas problems rather than their own

It is not the mission of either the American government nor of Christianity to rid the world of evil through force. Interfering in places we're not wanted doesn't solve problems, it only makes those problems worse. People suffer and die every day in this world, and we can't come to the rescue of every last one of them. The killing in Sudan will continue whether we intervene or not; intervening won't make the Sudanese better off, but it will make us worse off

Alex K said...

Madmax, you propose we should just let these people be tortured and die? or step in and make a difference.

stacy h said...

It isn't the US's obligation to be forceful with Sudan, but as a compassionate country, it sure seems like an option. The US does not need to use physical force, but undoubtedly, the US has power. Why can't some of it be used? Yes, throughout the world, people die everyday. I understand that one might have to sacrifice to help another, but why madmax are you so hesitant to assist the innocent and helpless? Just because you were probably lucky enough to be born as an American, it does not make you any better than those who have been born in Darfur. It seems like madmax you are taking the easy way out by saying that the genocide in Darfur is not your's of the US's problem.

MadMax said...

Stacy H:
Give me a break! Why should the US get involved in a war that is essentially about religion? We are a compasionate country -- but for our people -- not those people who don't care to help themselves. We got involved in Somalia -- and look what happened -- dead American soldiers and a ton of Somalis being relocated to Ohio and living off of welfare!
The last thing Ohio needs is more people living on welfare.

morgan marks said...

"We are a compassionate country -- but for our people -- not those people who don't care to help themselves." This comment from Madmax just struck me... The US believes in freedom, and why shouldn't we help those who can't help themselves? Why should we only be compassionate to those people in our country? You don't know the stories of the many thousands of people 'who can't help themselves' - we have people in our own country who 'can't help themselves,' and what, they were blessed because of geography? This will sound cheesy but I was told in elementary school 'we are all pink on the inside.' so please explain the difference between the people in our country and the people abroad ... because we're all people, and all deserve compassion and protection.

stacy h said...

Madmax, you say that the people in Sudan don’t care to help themselves. You are completely WRONG. How are people supposed to help themselves when they are driven from their homes and their means of survival? The people in Darfur only have time to worry about how to live to see another day! You become quite helpless when you are forced out of your village, left without any food or water, and know of no other place to go. They don’t have the means to fight back. That is why the question, “What should we do?,” continues to be asked. If the victims of the genocide and suffering could stop the cruelty, they would, but they can’t. They NEED our help!

Maybe you should check out some of these sights:
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/
http://www.savedarfur.org/content
http://www.africaaction.org/campaign_new/darfur.php

MadMax said...

Stach H.
Africans need to solve their own problems rather than expecting the West to do it for them. Economic development among the African countries rather than the West is vital as well as the development of an army that is used to hunt corrupt leaders and rebels who prey on the indigents. These criminals must then be tried and punished by Africans.
Wars have crippled most of African countries to poverty. These wars have been about fighting for leadership so a new group of pigs can have their turn at the trough. Corruption is the main disease of Africa now. I cannot imagine that Sierra Leone, with fields of diamonds is the poorest country in the world with the worst mortality rate. Africa must wake up and do things for themselves instead of being beggars. Until this happens I think that Africans have a very bleak future.

jolly j said...

5 weeks has passed since this article was posted and Darfur has yet to be saved. Genocide is still occurring and people are continually being forced out of their homes to become refugees. Does this mean that Sudan is destined to remain a country in chaos?

In response to madmax's comments:
I am in agreement with you that it isnt the United States' responsibility to march in and save the day in Darfur but I DO believe that it is our responsibility as citizens of a powerful country to promote change and stop the genocide in Sudan. As members of a democratic country, we have been given the right to voice our opinions. I am not saying that the US should send in troops and take out the Janjaweed single-handedly but rather notify the global community of the atrocities that are taking place so that the whole world may confront President al-Bashir.