Analysis Post

One of my major questions or concerns about the genocide in Darfur is the internationally communities lack of intervention. There are hundreds dying, millions displaced, and many more suffering from the genocide in Darfur. With the intervention of the international community, millions of lives could be saved, with a minimal effort on the part of the international community. It would not take a lot of effort or military force, as the Janjaweed are not trained fighters, only thugs on horseback, and the corrupt government has no chance against defending itself against one international power, let alone many. Though most public opinions agree that the US should intervene to halt the violence and genocide in Darfur, there are definitely other opinions voicing non-involvement, and these are affecting governmental policy in the United States. On the other hand, human rights activists are pushing for intervention. These two positions are in direct conflict of each other, and these schools of thought definitely influence governmental policies on intervention or non-intervention in Darfur.

                Some people believe, that even with intervention, there is only so much other countries can do. According to some of the people affecting intervention policies, it would be a waste of time to intervene in genocides, as without the cooperation or agreement of all participants, of course victims, and especially aggressors, such as a corrupt government, nothing can be accomplished. Others would argue that it is not the international communities’ job to intervene in other countries conflicts; genocide is the business of that country. It is an ethical debate, over what gives one state the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a separate state. Military intervention is an extreme step for many countries, and there are many reasons, or precautions, as to why international powers have not become militarily involved in stopping the conflict. Countries should only become militarily involved for the right reasons, which are to end human suffering. They should only become involved in a last resort, using other methods to try to end the conflict first. The amount of force should be only enough that is necessary to end the genocide and a state should only become involved if they have a reasonable chance at ending the violence. Another concern of intervention is that if an ethnicity that is not happy with their situation revolts, they will do so only because they know other countries will intervene on their behalf. Another influencing factor is that the United States  is already involved in other conflicts, like Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we have the man power, and furthermore the money to get involved in conflicts of genocide? Already deeply in debt, would it be worth it for the US to spend money on this conflict, even though it is not a definite that they would be capable of ending the genocide? Especially after how things have worked out in Afghanistan and Iraq, many US citizens are wary of involving the country in another conflict. They are wary of getting involved after the US has been involved in conflicts for many years past. For many international powers, the norm has been non-intervention, and intervening in conflicts where atrocities are occurring are huge decisions that could have a massive conflict. For some it is difficult to move away from what a country has always done and the norm and those who support it have large influences on governmental policies towards genocide.

                Others believe it is a countries’ responsibility to protect victims of genocide. In the United States, there are many human rights activists that have been pushing for change in Darfur. These groups also influence the governmental policy of intervention in genocide, one example being the creation of a Genocide Task Force by the Obama administration. Many believed it is vital that we intervene in conflicts now, by allowing these conflicts to continue, we are only setting up an environment where more genocides will occur. Many think it is the United State’s job to intervene, as we are one of the few states that is capable of doing so, one of the only powers capable of ending the massive amounts of violence. With hundreds dying and millions suffering, if there is the slightest chance of ending the violence, we should be involved. Even acts as small as sending peacekeepers could take tremendous steps in ending the genocide. If seeming small gestures, donations, or actions have the chance of saving millions of lives, then we should definitely be involved in ending the genocide in Darfur. It is obvious to many that Omar al-Bashir and his government are wrong, we should definitely be taking more steps to ending the violence. Bashir is promoting the violence, supporting the murder of the non-Arabian African tribes, by using air support, starving the non-Arabian populations by only supply tribes he supports with humanitarian aid. It is obvious to many that Bashir is exploiting the Sudanese civilians. When Bashir was convicted by the ICC, he kicked out humanitarian aid, causing more and more of the Darfur population to suffer. The United States has gotten involved in other countries with corrupt leaders before, and human rights activist believe they should be even more involved in a country where millions are suffering and thousands are dying from genocide. The United States should be involved where rape is used as a weapon.  For many, the belief that we should be involved in Darfur is very strong. They believe when millions are suffering, the international community should be involved.

                Both these points of opinion, or schools of thought, certainly influence the US and other international states’ policies on intervention in Darfur. The issue of intervention and genocide is definitely a complex one. It is both hard and simple for me to understand. I want the US government and population to be involved in ending genocide in Darfur, but I understand there are many issues that are keeping them from ending the violence.