A piece in the UK news led me to look a little bit into claims by the US Congress and Human Rights Watch that the violence occuring in the Darfur region of Sudan is genocide. According to the BBC piece the EU is claiming that the violence doesn't meet the criteria for genocide. That definition, by international convention is:
In the present Convention, genocide means 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.
quote:Janjaweed militiamen are primarily members of nomadic "Arab" tribes who've long been at odds with Darfur's settled "African" farmers, who are darker-skinned. (The labels Arab and African are rather misleading, given the complexity of the region's ethnic history. For simplicity's sake, Explainer will stick with these inelegant terms.)
and "non-Arab groups"
quote:The Janjaweed started to become much more aggressive last year, after two non-Arab groups, the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, took up arms against the Sudanese government, alleging mistreatment by the Arab regime in Khartoum.
So by the convention, there is killing of members of a national, ethnical, racial group and therefore it is genocide.
Or is it a civil war? Or both? Does the international community have a right to interfere in a country's civil affairs (civil war)? Are all (or most) civil wars going to lead to genocide by the UN definition?
The Sudanese government claims that the US is making the claim for domestic political reasons.
quote:"That (the US Congress labelling) is prejudicial. The African Union has concluded there is no question of genocide. I have more confidence in its judgment," Ismail said.
"It's an election year in the United States. Deputies of both parties are targeting the vote of black Americans and present themselves as the protectors of the African interests."
posted
This is my first time seeing the thread, so permit me a minute to reflect.
I doubt the candidates in the US elections are trying to sway black (African-American?) voters by suddenly becoming interested in the affairs of Africa.
I also believe referencing the American elections is a handy way of attempting to discredit the commentary of the US Congress on the matter.
The legal definition of genocide is a little vague for my taste, from a strictly letter-of-the-law point of view. Most conflicts could be evaluated as "genocide" based on this criteria.
That being said, the UN should evaluate the situation and provide a response, regardless of what form that response may take.
As for the US stance - I repeat my protest that we are not the world police, nor should we intervene in every conflict that springs up.
posted
I don't know anything about the situation there, I only know that it's a major humanitarian disaster and I hope the world will step in and help.
I do wonder, however, if morally we at hatrack feel it's always wrong to destroy a civilian population as a tactic of war.
Sherman pioneered this field, saying that the South's armies would never be defeated until their civilian support was destroyed. So they burned and raped and pillaged with unprecedented ferocity, women, children, animals, homes, fields and farms, everything. In a huge swath all across the South. Believe me it has not been forgotten. The perspective that comes from having that happen in your home is one that you don't get, really, in any other way.
In Vietnam we did (or did not do, depending on who you believe) a bit of the same thing. Agent Orange was pretty destructive of the civilian population's livlihood. We liked to hope that things like Me Lai were rare. But I am not sure.
In Guatemala in the 1980s the government (with US weapons and ammunition) slaughtered native villages with the same aim. The soldiers would go into a village in the areas of insurgency, and just murder out of hand everyone there. If they spared (after raping whomever they felt like raping) any of the girls and women, they certainly killed every boy from age 12 up to old men in their 70s. Quite often they would kill absolutely everyone. We know about this because it's hard to keep your eye on a whole village for the whole time it takes to kill them all. Here and there one or two would escape to tell the tale. One survivor told of a soldier tossing a baby into the air and impaling it upon his bayonet. She chillingly recalled how she listened to her children scream, "mama, save us, they are killing us" while she hid, knowing that she could not save them.
This tactic has been used many times before, and it seems it's being carried out again now in Darfur. Do we repudiate this forever as a means of waging war? I certainly hope we do. Genocides are far too frequent in the history of our species.
[ July 27, 2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd still like to hear more "old heads'" opinions about why no replies...
I'm also interested in the topic and would like to discuss.
Trevor-
Regardless if we're going to commit troops to a conflict I think the US very much wants to lead world opinion. Also, with the US' international political goodwill stretched pretty thin right now I think that we need to at least watch how the rest of the world reacts on any particular topic. I was particularly disturbed by the piece on the radio this morning when the British "expert" stated that the biggest reason the EU was not taking the same stance, as the US was purely political. Specifically, acknowledging genocide would require action in accordance with the Convention.
The UN has provided a response...They're not sure...need more time...maybe sanctions? Same with EU.
ak-
Yes. However, why term genocide unless the army's aim is to annihilate all without concern for Law of Armed Conflict. Although the means used in your examples are repugnant the civilian population is a valid target in some wars and instances. Strategic attack: an attempt to cripple the opponent's ability to wage war through destruction of resources, industry, and population.
If one attacks such a strategic target after recognizing that objectives are met or that the attacks are not having their desired effect this would be a crime. But I'm not convinced that the attack is a crime in and of itself.
Edit: ak, your examples don't fit my definition of strategic attack. I'm trying to argue that there are legitimate targets that easily fit the definition of genocide, as stated by the convention, that probably aren't genocide at all.
posted
Morally, to me, it's hard to distinguish genocide from just slaughtering civilian populations as a way of waging war, gaining territory, acquiring lebensraum, or whatever. But either way to me it's completely repugnant.
I guess if we use that word, then it means we have to respond in certain ways by law according to treaties we've signed. That's whey the word matters.
But yes, I think it's true in a whole lot of cases where the international community has not recognized it. If the way someone looks, dresses, or speaks is the criterion by which you decide whether or not to slaughter them, then you are choosing those of a particular culture or genetic group to exterminate, so it seems to me that you are committing genocide.
[ July 27, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the way someone looks, dresses, or speaks is the criterion by which you decide whether or not to slaughter them, then you are choosing those of a particular culture or genetic group to exterminate, so it seems to me that you are committing genocide.
So, in Darfur one side of the conflict is Arab, the other is "non-Arab". They're attacking each other. Each belongs to a particular culture and genetic group, and each would kill the other.
Is it genocide?
(The facts of this conflict are not even close to this simple. I'm trying to get at the nub of genocide, not trying to defend what is going on in Sudan.)
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
We have this uncanny ability to export our "culture" rampantly, but our political standing has been questionable of late.
I remember sitting on a bunk bed in Ireland, talking to an Australian girl about her collection of American country music.
Opinions are fine, but the subsequent question becomes "and what are you going to do about it?"
Well, what are we willing to do about it? I certainly don't want to throw around more American might as the current world climate is fairly unimpressed with our decisions over the last thirty years or so.
Which is why if something needs to happen, it needs to come from the UN and not the US - otherwise it becomes more Pax Americana.
People make things complicated in order to avoid the basic issues at hand.
I don't much care if they've had generations of Hatfield and McCoy action going on. Does what great-grandpappy Hatfield did to great-grandpappy McCoy justify what you're doing to me now?
Why are you trying to kill me?
To take the land or some other property?
Because you don't approve of my religion?
You don't approve of my ethnicity?
What about my cultural values? Don't care for them either?
Because of some ancient grudge?
Are you willing to slaughter every last man, woman and child to annihilate your foes?
Wars can and quite often do happen along cultural or ethnic lines. For me, the defining issue of genocide is - "Are you trying to slaughter every last man, woman and child?"
You can even extend that along religious or cultural ideals if you like, but a willful attempt to exterminate, eradicate or otherwise remove all traces of your opponent is genocide.
With that in mind, is either side attempting to engage in ethnic cleansing? Are they killing people "just because they are <insert race, religion or other issue here>?"
I think you're close to my idea of the difference between warfare and genocide also.
In my mind, if two antagonists in a war are each of different, homogeneous, groups <insert religion, ethnicity>, and are attacking each other as part of that war, it is not necessarily genocide. It might just be war.
If, however, the reason that one antagonist is attack the other is because of <insert ....> then it may be genocide.
The problem is that often the two blur.
Say one country attacks another because of a real or perceived threat. That attackers and the attacked are (almost) homogeneous in different races and religions. The war is brutal and there is a significant amount of bloodshed, perhaps only on the side of the attacked. Could the attacked population reasonably feel that it is the target of genocide?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They could - or they might call it genocide to sway public opinion in their favor. Particularly if they happen to be losing.
The problem with genocide - much like intent in the US judicial system, it's very difficult to prove until after the fact.
Certain atrocities are more easily classified and a systematic occurence of these incidents can make a persuasive argument for what is and isn't an actual campaign of genocide.
Look at the ethnic cleansing issues - wholesale slaughter of entire villages, a policy of beating, raping and torturing women in the name of ethnic purity. In this scenario, I would feel quite comfortable in assigning genocide to the intent of the attackers.
However, without third person accounts of what is and isn't happening, it can be very difficult to provide an unbiased evaluation of anything.
posted
From what I've been able to determine, this is not just a civil war.
Group A attacks Group B. Group B fights back, but looses. THat is a civil war.
What we have here is a dedicated attempt to cleanse an area of Darfur people. You kill everyone in a village and warn the next three villages that you will be visiting them soon. Doesn't take long for people to start leaving.
And where do they go? The travel across some of the hottest dryest dessert in the world, to reach, if they are lucky, the refuge camps which are under staffed and under fed becaause the relief supplies are being attacked by the same people who are doing the attacking.
And who is doing the attacking? A group of concerned citizens, which most likely have the backing of the government. Despite governmental protests that the tribesmen are attacking on their own, there has been overwhelming reports of government air support, and government troops helping.
Even if they are not, there is no reports of governmental troops opposing the murders, rapes, and pedocidal actions of the tribesmen.
If this is not genocide, its close enough to it to still be an evil that must be stopped.
If this is Genocide, then according to treaties we signed, many governments must oppose it immiediatly, up to and including the use of troops
That is why people shy away from calling it Genocide. Its one thing to say, "Hey, quit doing that." Its quite another to step in the way of the bullet.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Genocide is based on groupings folks generally don't have a choice about belonging to.
Atrocity, which most of ak's examples seemed to fit, is not necessarily either. Though I think genocide would naturally tend toward atrocity because the nature of the fighting is to get rid of a population seen as less human rather than advance one's own goals.
Those who criticize Sherman- should slavery have not been ended? By promoting slavery, the confederacy had made themselves less human. I think not all warfare is equivalent.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If group A attacks group B with the purpose of destroying it and group B defends itself that can certainly still be genocide. Otherwise the only way genocide can take place is if group B just let's themselves be executed which has never happened. In the Holocaust Jews revolted in ghettos and concentration and formed partisan groups albeit only occasionally.
From the little I know the situation in Sudan has been going on for a while now, starting years ago the Sudanese government supported militia groups' efforts to persecute the people in Dafur, if the people are fighting back now that doesn't mean that genocide has stopped. Since what you essentially have is a government targeting an ethnic group with the intent of not defeating it but destroying it I would consider that genocide and therefore warranting whatever support we can give them.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think that "atrocity" describes the "in-between" conflict and genocide that I've been trying to grasp. I'm realizing that I'm not familiar enough with the facts of Darfur and need to do more research. However, based on the limited facts I was receiving in the press stories I saw, I perceived a flaw in logic in labeling the violence as genocide. Logically, I think that a tactic might be an atrocity, look like genocide because of the parties involved, but in fact not be genocidal.
Dan, Thanks for your reply. I'm in the process of reading some of the source material, to be able to respond in a more educated way.
posted
Here is an interesting perspective from an internet site “designed to empower you, the individual activist, to help stop the genocide in Sudan.” The short version is that the author prefers a very liberal interpretation of the treaty verbiage with the understanding that if you stop every conflict that might be genocide, you guarantee stopping all genocide.
quote:Consider that under the treaty genocide involves intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group in whole or in part.[no emphasis added] It is genocide if one only intends--rather than succeeds at--destroying only a part of a group--rather than the whole of a group. History suggests that the framers of this treaty intended these as low, not high, hurdles. The framers' intent was to avoid a situation where someone could be found innocent of genocide either because he or she had failed to destroy the target group, or because he or she only intended to destroy a portion of a target group--say, those who lived on a certain stretch of valuable land.[no emphasis added]
posted
I can't tell from the little I've read whether or not it's "textbook definition of genocide." But over 50,000 deaths is what matters most to me. Sovereignty of nations is well and good, but there's a breaking point. And to me, that occurs somewhere before 50,000 of your citizens die.
For all that Saddam Hussein did, did he really kill over 50,000 people? Though I'm shocked to discover (naive I must be), that wikipedia says that between 25 - 75,000 Iraqis were killed in the Gulf War.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, you might be interested in this thread from a month ago about Darfur. Genocide and defining conflicts as genocide gets tossed around a lot.
posted
Suneun, depends on who you blame for everyone that died as a result of the embargoes. Some say U.S., because we did the embargo. But it's not like Hussein was using all his money for food and social programs first and only then building palaces and doubling the survivor funds for suicide bombers. Hussein was bad, but I continue to maintain that we helped him become what he was and that is why he was our responsibility.
Another thing that can happen is if all the poor people are being killed, or all the slums are being emptied. What if all the poor people happen to be one ethnic/religious group? It is an atrocity, but whether it's genocide is debateable.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In an exhaustive study published in 1994, Human Rights Watch concluded that the 1988 Anfal campaign amounted to an extermination campaign against the Kurds of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of at least 50,000 and perhaps as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children.
These numbers only account for what he did to the Kurds.
posted
Unless things have changed this month, I think the position of the Bush Administration is that what is happnening in Darfur is NOT genocide.
I heard a news interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell (which I listened to twice) who stated that his lawyers told him that the Darfur situation did not meet the conditions of genocide. This was at the end of his visit to Sudan.
So I think the EU and the Bush administration are in agreement on this issue. Any American pressure on Sudan about genocide is coming come private citizens (and maybe some congressmen.)
posted
Dag, okay then they're similar in magnitude. Making Darfur as concerning in the human rights perspective (blah blah they don't have WMD capabilities, blah blah).
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if Time is available online, but we get it at work. There was a quote from one of the Arab gunmen about what they were doing in Darfur. "We're trying to make light-skinned babies."
Maybe Time is biased. I haven't been reading it long enough to know. But I thought that statement said a lot. Actually, it made me sick to my stomach. One of the men responsible was willing to admit they were trying to get rid of the blacks any way they could.
What good is the UN if this isn't evil enough for them? Women are being systematically raped, sometimes in the middle of town in front of their families, to scare them off. And if that fails, maybe they'll get a light baby from it. If this isn't the defenseless in need of protection what is? Why do we throw millions of dollars a year away on a group that won't even save people from torture, fear, and evil?
One more reason the US needs to pull out of the UN. They're completely worthless.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
You have a how many countries trying to decide what to do or what not to do. Which, to be fair, pretty much sums up most democracies.
If the UN doesn't want to get involved, it's not like the US can spare the troops or resources to get bogged down in yet another quagmire.
And frankly even with the best of intentions, any intervention by the US will been as attempting to enforce Pax Americana or a Zionist conspiracy to conquer the world.
posted
Well the google ad for what its worth claims that 2 million have been killed throughout the ongoing conflict. If that's even close to being accurate how do we not at the least attempt to mitigate even without force? Even if diplomatic mitigation fails it certainly can't make things worse.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Ever watch cops try to intervene in a domestic dispute? I watched one - and I felt so amazingly sorry for the officer.
The girl went from "you're choking me!" to "why the hell are you bothering us officer?"
Never mind this happened out in the parking lot at 03:30 and at least five different phone calls went in to 911.
And until or unless we curtail operations in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, we don't have the military power to sustain the kind of on-going intervention necessary to keep such deep-rooted rivals from exploding into bloodshed.
And if you think the American people are tired of watching bodies come back from Iraq, try explaining to them their sons and daughters are dying in a country that doesn't directly impact American interests.
posted
I'm surprised that many of the responses attempting to define genocide key in on the number of deaths in a given conflict. In my mind the key is motivation. Was trench warfare in WWI genocide just becuase millions lost their lives? In my mind, no. Why is the fact that 50,000 lost their lives in Iraq or Sudan automatically genocide.
In my mind, it isn't automatically. However, after examining the motivation behind attacks and atrocities you could easily define either one as genocide.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rubble, I was confused by the initial discussion in your post as to what kind of response you were looking for, or I might have responded earlier. I don't know a thing about who's killing who, only that a lot of people are dying.
Still, I don't see that this is necessarily any worse than all the other various conflicts going on in the world now.
As for the concept of genocide--why is it so much more repugnant to kill all of a certain group than to kill an equivalent number of people who don't fall into one group, anyway?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the concept of genocide--why is it so much more repugnant to kill all of a certain group than to kill an equivalent number of people who don't fall into one group, anyway?
It seems analogous to hate crimes in the US. And I don't think I have a strong argument about why hate crimes should be punished more severely. Punishment is a whole other weird ballgame.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If hate crime laws serve any purpose, it's as a societal statement that we don't tolerate this behavior. It's really only needed in societies that once tolerated lynchings, gay-bashing, and other hate crimes.
I have moral problems with saying one fully intentional, premeditated murder is worse than another (barring differences in the amount of suffering caused en route to death), or with two such murderes getting different punishments because one was a hate crime. But it's healthy for a society with a history of discrimination and failure to protect vulnerable citizens to acknowledge in a bright law that those times are past.
As for why genocide is worse, I think it's because there the actual goal is the extermination of humans. If the goal is to take someone's land, or to steal the diamonds there, or some other economic/political goal, then there's hope some agreement can be reached. But if the goal is to make sure there are no more blacks, or Arabs, or Jews in a given place, there is no possibility of peaceful resolution.
I don't buy that this distinction is enough to warrant intervention in one case with millions of death but not in another. But I think that's the underlying rationale.
As Dag has explained, if a million or so people die as incidental deaths or even accidentally, that's a shame, tragedy and whatever cliche you choose to use.
But to make a point to completely obliterate, to annihilate, to hound unto death every last possible member of a group that has nothing in common save a common link - be it race or religion or cultural values...you are trying to terminate every last remnant or trace of your enemy.
What seperates these two is intent - and, to be fair, accidental or incidental or even collateral deaths tend to stop after a point.
With genocide, you don't stop until every last vestige of this culture has been "purged".
posted
Trevor does that mean cops should stay out of domestic disputes just because both sides may end up mad at the cops? I'm not sure how American mitigation would result in American deaths either. Especially if we can arrange a Camp David thing where we don't even have to send diplomatic personell to Sudan. While it may not work like it with Israel and the PLO, it may work like Israel and Egypt. Is anyone here really going to tell that using American influence to start negoiation is something not worthwhile even if it increases the perception of the US as the world's policeman? Of course of all that matters only if the situation is actually a civil war as opposed to genocide because in the latter there really aren't two sides.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think cops are aware of just how potentially messy a domestic dispute can be. A domestic dispute can be one of the worst calls an officer can respond to and while providing a common enemy does wonders for keeping two people from killing each other, it's a little rough on the cop.
And continuing this analogy, kind words won't help.
Are we prepared to use military force? Are we prepared to risk a black eye and a bloody lip? Measured, of course, in American lives.
In these kinds of conflicts, negotiations only work if both sides are interested in reaching a solution.
If you're willing to engage in genocide, 1. Reason went out the window 2. You're pretty sure you're going to win, so why stop?
1. Just because the situation is tough on the cop does that mean cops shouldn't respond to domestic violence cases?
2. Why American lives have to put at risk if we mitigate diplomatically.
Just because you think "kind words" won't help does that really mean we shouldn't try? Are we wasting that much American tax dollars inviting both sides (assuming there are two sides) to a retreat at Camp David?
If it is genocide are you actually saying we should stay out? Are you upholding the same isolationist policy that lead to the death of 6 million Jews and millions more of other ethnicities during World War II? I say if genocide is actually occuring we as human beings have an obligation to do whatever is in our individual and collective power to end it no matter where in the world it occurs because someone in Sudan is no less human than someone in California. If we became militarily involved would Americans be killed in combat? Out of all likelihood yes, but hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives in World War II and I think that was a worthwhile conflict to involve ourselves in regardless of direct American interests.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Are we willing to play cops in this instance? Are we willing to try and seperate these two factions? Are we going to commit the time, resources and manpower necessary? As to your basic question, yes - cops should respond to a domestic call. The American military [u]are not[/u] the world's police force.
2. Talk all you want. Do your best. I'm predicting it won't work. If either side was interested in talking, they wouldn't have jumped straight to committing genocide. And since they believe they have a chance at winning, a bloodthirsty victor usually has no incentive to attend peace talks. But by all means, invite them.
Since you want to go down the Nazi road - do you think Hitler would have stopped at an invite to Camp David? Maybe, if the tide of battle had turned against him and he wasn't a frothing lunatic.
3. I'm not quite as flippant about losing soldiers in a conflict the rest of the world can't be bothered with.
a. We already have a public relations problem with Arab nations. Do we want to compound an already turbulent scenario? It's not likely we are going to receive fair and balanced coverage from media sources with a headsman's axe to grind.
b. Are we willing to suffer charges of Pax Americana and complaints that not only are we acting as the world's police but be seen as enforcing our way of life and thinking on another country?
c. How do you propose we bring peace to this new battlefield? May I remind you we have large quantities of troops and resources committed to both Iraq and Afghanistan - the Army is stretched far too thinly as it stands.
d. America's track record in negotiating peaceful accords between warring factions isn't the greatest with even the kindest eye.
By all means, it would make everyone feel warm and downright fuzzy to say we tried to do a good thing.
But if we try and fail, we're likely to make the situation worse.
And while WW2 was a war on two fronts, we weren't fighting either front single-handedly. Right now, we have two major theatres of operation and for all practical purposes, we are supporting both fronts by ourselves. Or do you really think the relatively meager coalition of forces are up to the task in Iraq as things stand now?
posted
1. If it means saving tens, hundreds of thousands of lives or more than yes I think we should play policeman. If you do think the police should settle domestic disputes then that was a pretty porr analogy on your partas it really only serves to reinforce my idea that while the business may be nasty and unpleasant for the mediator it is still worthwhile.
2. You're not listening. I only recommend peace talks if its a civil war as opposed to genocide as some people on this forum and the world are suggesting. No, I obviously don't believe Hitler would have attended peace talks nor should we have let him if that meant a Germany continued to be ruled by Nazis.
3. Gee, the rest of the world is selfish and doesn't care about other people, I guess two wrongs make a right and we should sit back too.
a. Because our relationships with terrorism supporting dictatorships should be prioritized over using our influence to end genocide right?
b. And if the world would have charged Pax Americana against us in 1941 you would have given up to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor right?
c. We do have some troop strength left and at the least we could start using our air force and navy to pound the militias into the ground, or at the very least use those as reasons why Sudan should give up without a fight, which is possible seeing as how Milosevic did give up without a ground invasion and Ghadafi gave up his WMD after he saw what happened in Iraq. Furthermore, we still haven't applied the diplomatic pressure we could. Such as nudging our so called allies France, Germany, and Russia and calling on tougher sanctions than are currently imposed. There are also allies we haven't even looked to because of Arab relations (Israel), and if the US actually shows determination to act Sudan's neighbors may very help as refugees poring over their borders never makes them happy.
d. While America has failed on several counts to bring peace as a third party arbitrator is has also succeeded occassionally such as in the aforementioned Israeli-Egyptian negotiations with Carter. I don't see how its possible to make the situation any worse, its already a breeding ground for terrorism with terrorist groups possesing bases there, and its already in either a full scale civil war or involved in genocide. Please explain how things could possibly get worse.
In Afghanistan there is still support from countries like Germany, France, and Canada, all countries who opposed our entry into the Iraq war. In the Iraq war we still have quite a few allies with "neutral" countries like Japan taking up increasingly large portions of what amounts to peacekeeping and reconstruction which may sound minor but would otherwise take up American bodies. Personally, I think the situation in Iraq will be successfully resolved for the aforementioned reasons and because Iraqis will take over increasingly large portions of the work to the securing of their nation. However, I think the Iraq situation is irrelevant because it only determines the extent to which we can act as opposed to if/should we act.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are we willing to play cops in this instance?
Trevor,
You're approaching the reason that I was motivated to post this thread in the first place.
My take is that the US congress voted to declare the atrocities occurring in Sudan genocide in order to force action by the US in accordance with the UN Convention. This is opinion, only, I haven't reviewed any text from the debate on the floor.
Pundits in Europe (specifically UK) have claimed that the reason the EU is unwilling to label the violence in Darfur genocide is because the member states don't want to be bound by the convention to act.
I am trying to get my arms around if I think that there is in fact genocide occuring so that I can evaluate the actions of the US and European governments in that light. To me it makes a huge difference why the US takes a stand that is different than that of its erstwhile allies, because we're getting so much bad international press about lack of consensus.
1. Then we strongly disagree. Cops function as part of a given society. If you live within that society, you have agreed to the "social contract." That society ends at our nation's borders - we do not have the right to intervene anywhere we dislike the current political climate. We can certainly force our opinions and viewpoints on others, but that's not the same as upholding and enforcing a peace within our collective house.
2. Then I misunderstood the intent of your post.
3. You cannot run around with a net trying to save everybody. It just doesn't work. And if the US is going to start dictating the policy of other countries, we run the risk of making more problems further down the road.
For any meaningful action to take place, we must have a consensus of action with other nations before start waving our big stick around.
a. Provided it is genocide? I'm not a fan of our current policies regarding supporting governments that clearly violate the principles we are trying to "defend." Saudia Arabia is a perfect example.
I seem to recall we butted heads over the US continuing to support Israel.
b. The difference being, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. We launched a war based on that - not as an attempt to mediate or dictate terms betewen two other governments or factions.
When I use the term "Pax Americana", it applies to using our military to force a set of behaviors in a situation [u]that has not directly affected us.[/u] You may not like what may or may not be happening in the Sudan, but as neither element has attacked US troops or engaged in any act of warfare against US citizens, it's not the same thing as Pearl Harbor.
c. Yes, we do have some troop strength left. But we cannot commit the very last of our reserves to anything short of an American disaster. I don't know if this is a concept you will ever understand or agree with, but helping others is a wonderful thing - but not at the cost of impoverishing yourself.
Yes, we could certainly try nudging our allies into considering action regarding the Sudan - which moves back to my point of requiring a consensus of action. Our foreign relationships are stretched a tad thin at this point, in addition to our military capability and starting what might be a whole new theatre of operations will only undermine world opinion and hamper any efforts to resolve the situation.
As for launching an air war - it's entirely possible. But first we have to identify valid targets, which could be difficult if we're trying to sort out one group of civilians from another.
d. Yes we do - and we are in the process of pulling out of Iraq. And we'll find out how well the new government holds together. And if it falls apart in spectacular fashion, will we march in again to put their house in order? Although if we're bogged down in the Sudan, it might become a tad complicated.
As to the pointless issue of Iraq and hindering the degree to which we can respond - I'll give you that. However, I will also point out that as a factor of US ability to respond will include some idea of deploying US forces. And any leader is going to wonder how determined we are to land US forces when we still haven't cleaned up our two on-going messes?
posted
So genocide is what, a necessary evil? The world tried appeasement from 1933 to 1939 and look how well that turned out. I'm a big fan of not appeasing forces which wish to and have the power to murder thousands or even millions.
quote: Our foreign relationships are stretched a tad thin at this point, in addition to our military capability and starting what might be a whole new theatre of operations will only undermine world opinion and hamper any efforts to resolve the situation.
You're again implying that things can get worse than they currently are by us attempting to mitigate. Please, as I asked before, explain how that is possible.
quote: I seem to recall we butted heads over the US continuing to support Israel.
So I guess that means its better to let Israel and Egpyt effectively fight to the death because since you disagree with the governments the citizens should die as well right? Even more since the treaty between the two resulted in so much immediate and long term damage to America's reputation, right?
quote: 3. You cannot run around with a net trying to save everybody. It just doesn't work. And if the US is going to start dictating the policy of other countries, we run the risk of making more problems further down the road.
Is it really so bad to the save the ones we can especially when we're talking about genocide?
Since you can't tell if genocide is occuring then why is an attempt at negotiation something not worth trying?
From all that you've said I have a feeling that if it were up to you you would have waited until Pearl Harbor before attacking Hitler and Japan and even then would have looked for the easiest way out even if that meant leaving Hitler in power, after all the Jews weren't our allies right?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
My cursory read of the sections I thought would contain evidence of atrocities and genocide contained mostly opinion and not observation.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
