Since 2003 the situation in Darfur has left at least 200,000 people dead, and 4 million people displaced, do you think that the international community has done enough to try to prevent this tragedy from occurring? personally i feel more intervention should happen, sanctions and more humanitarian effort. The International criminal court next week will be naming suspects for crimes against humanity. Since the president of Sudan lost his chief of the African union position, do you think that a coalition of UN and AU peacekeepers will happen? Within the time period of one month over 50,000 people have been asked to leave Sudan. Secretary General Ban is meeting with the president of Sudan to discuss the matter in hopes of relieving tension in Sudan. do you think there should be a military intervention in Sudans Darfur region?
Story found here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's definitely a sad state of affairs. Unfortunately, human rights violations are rarely a big enough reason for a major country to intervene with direct military action. The Sudanese government has made this even less likely by providing a profitable oil trade, and some have speculated that this is what kept Sudan out of the mass media's spotlight from 1986-2003. During that time the death toll might have been slower, but government-sponsored slavery existed there (among other human rights violations), contrary to the average person undoubtedly thinking such systems were extinct.
Personally I think this situation may not have even needed *direct* military action, as the regime that's been in power since 1989 has support from something like 10% of the population, but manages to oppress a constant rebellion anyway, in my opinion due to funding from the oil trade allowing them to purchase expensive Russian military equipment. So the $1.2 billion (as of 2001) we've spent on humanitarian relief as a result of this fighting , would in my opinion have been better spent arming the Dinkas and other rebels (*indirect* military aid). For years these rebels have fought the government forces and government-funded militias and terrorist organizations, and maintained resolve (although chronically under-funded), in attempts to end their own oppression. It frustrates me that groups NOT trying as hard get all the help in the world, but the indigenous Sudanese go it alone.
Aside from the oil thing, another reason we may shy away from such thinking is that the Sudanese government is so inconsistent it's hart to peg them into a group such as 'enemy' or 'ally'. The Sudanese government has separate unchecked agencies that sometimes take completely opposite sides- they harbored Bin Laden from '91-96, yet are sometimes an 'ally' in the war on terror. They are still on our list of state sponsors of terrorism (and not just their own home-grown terrorists, but international Al-Qaeda affiliated ones as well) due to one agency's actions, yet another agency provides us with intelligence on Al-Qaeda in Iraq that saves American lives. Or there could be more communication between government factions than is suggested, and Sudan is simply very, very good at 'getting away with' what it wants to do.
Either way, I think somebody should support a regime change in Sudan, whether it involves helping the rebels or some 'pro-human rights' agency (if it exists) take power.
i think something should be done to help alleviate the situation in darfur. unfortunately, i think the underlying causes are often overlooked.
admittedly i dont know of a documented source, but i have heard that there is hesitation to intervene in darfur mainly because the controlling people there are trying to get an oil pipeline installed (by Canadian and other international entities) - the people that are being killed are simply in the way of the pipeline. obviously this would mean a huge economic profit for those in control (*thats just what ive heard)
its odd to me how people can get so upset when the U.S. intervenes in another country's business, with the legitimate intent to make a situation better - and when things go wrong, the same people immediately second guess the decision.
at the same time, they get upset when theres a situation like the one in darfur and the U.S. does nothing to help out.
if we did go to help, it could potentially turn into another mogadishu...
the U.S. is sometimes considered "the world's police man" - and people say that like its a bad thing. and then they complain when we dont intervene in darfur.
I think that the troops going in will help benefit the situation by having reinforcement.Since the Darfur isn't getting any better, I think our troops can help organize everything.
And at least with our troops there we can help out the situation as well as lower the death rate.
Post a Comment