Genocide in Sudan

From Never Again

GENOCIDE IN SUDAN

AMERICA MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY


NICHOLAS GERDA


Darfur, Sudan has been the location of an ethnic cleansing crisis, and while it has lasted less than two years, it has already resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Millions of families–often injured–have fled their homes in a desperate escape for survival. The government-sponsored campaign has been declared genocide by the United States, and the United Nations designated the situation as “the worst humanitarian crisis of our time.” Some have brushed the prospect of intervention by the U.S. aside, saying the conflict does not directly influence the United States or its interests. The underlying value of the statement is that the United States should not bother itself with issues which do not affect Americans or the United States’ political and economic interests directly. The implications of this philosophy are absolutely staggering. If America’s foreign policy decisions are guided by this principle, then our morality as a nation has entirely imploded. Did the Holocaust–as horrific as it was–directly influence the political and economic interests of the United States? Our decision to oppose Germany was guided largely by a deeper principle, a principle which has existed since the first steps of our prehistoric ancestors. Human dignity and worth is our nation’s most precious interest. The United States must intervene both diplomatically and militarily in the Sudanese Darfur Genocide Crisis because intervention will greatly bolster America’s low international perception, because hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have already been slaughtered and the government-sponsored militia represents a significant threat to the people of Sudan, and because we must uphold our international commitment to the eradication of genocide as outlined during the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

One convincing reason for the United States to intervene diplomatically and militarily in Sudan’s genocide crisis is that mediation will greatly bolster America’s tattered global image. International sentiment towards the United States is has been unfavorable over the last few years. In October 2005, a British Ministry of Defense poll concluded that less than one percent of Iraqi citizens support the U.S. occupation and up to 65 percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. troops are justified. A global poll conducted this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that “the United States is globally viewed less favorably than most other countries, including China. Up to 59% of citizens in countries which traditionally partner with America [currently] hold negative views of the United States.” Quite interestingly, the same poll found that when asked “If an innocent people were being killed by the army, the police or another tribe in another country, who would you trust most to stop the killings?”, respondents in the U.S., Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and India all chose the United States first. Global perception of the United States has faltered in recent years, and America desperately needs to boost its image if we want cooperative participation in international organizations. Diplomatic and military arbitration in Darfur, Sudan will greatly improve America’s image globally by showing the world that America is not concerned solely with its own economic interests; and will also show we are willing to defend the rights and freedoms of peoples abroad. The global–and national–community responds extremely favorably to peace-ensuring actions the United States undertakes. However, improving a nation’s external image is not anywhere near as important as the moral obligation a government possesses to end the indiscriminate slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children.

Possibly the most important reason why the United States must intervene both diplomatically and militarily in the Darfur Genocide Crisis is the reality that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have already been massacred, and the government-sponsored militia represents a significant threat to the lives of the entire population of Sudan. Before I continue further, I would like to present some important historical background on the issue at hand. The people of Darfur, Sudan fall into two distinct ethnicities: non-Arab peoples and Arab tribes. The government of Sudan has maintained a predominately Arab composition since the country's independence in 1956; the government has since been a succession of military dictatorial regimes. The present conflict began in February 2003 when non-Arab rebels attacked government troops and forts, accusing the Arab government of oppressing non-Arabs in favor of Arabs. The government responded by mounting a “massive campaign of aerial bombardment supporting ground attacks by an Arab militia–the Janjaweed– recruited from local tribes and armed by the government. While the conflict has a political basis, it has also acquired an ethnic dimension in which civilians were deliberately targeted on the basis of their ethnic background. The scale of the crisis has led to predictions of an imminent catastrophe, with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning that the risk of genocide is "frighteningly real" in Darfur. The scale of the Janjaweed campaign has led to comparisons with the Rwandan Genocide, a parallel vehemently denied by the Sudanese government. In early July 2004, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Sudan and Darfur, and urged the Sudanese government to stop supporting the Janjaweed militias. On July 23, 2004, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed a joint resolution declaring the armed conflict in the Sudanese region of Darfur to be genocide and calling on the Bush administration to lead an international effort to put a stop to it” (Wikipedia). To this day, the United States has refused to commit any troops. On January 5, 2005, the U.N. International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur completed their report, in which they found that “the Government of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law.” The Commission identified “51 individuals responsible for the violation of human rights” and recommended “immediate trial at the International Criminal Court” (ICC). However, the United States has refused to support the use of the ICC, and none of the perpetrators have been tried. On March 7, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke to the U.N. Security Council requesting that “the peacekeeping force in Sudan be increased to assist the 2,000 African Union troops already deployed.” A Security Council resolution requesting the deployment of an additional 10,000 peacekeepers has been delayed by “the failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on the mechanism to be used to try war criminals and the application and extent of sanctions.” Following an increase in fighting in the region, on October 13, 2005, the UN announced that it would withdraw all non-essential staff from Darfur. According to the U.N., “West Darfur is too dangerous for aid agencies to operate.” (Wikipedia) The BBC reported that “analysts estimate that at least 15,000 soldiers are necessary to put an end to the ethnic cleansing.” There are currently around 3,000 troops deployed to Sudan—from Nigeria and Rwanda. Worst of all, the U.S. State Department estimates “181,000 people have died since March 2003 in the conflict-affected area of Darfur.” The government-sponsored Janjaweed are accused of “committing serious human rights violations, including mass killing, looting, and rapes of the civilian population” (Human Rights Watch). They caravan from village to village, massacring hundreds at a time with their weaponry–although handheld weapons aren’t all they use in their ruthless ransacking. The Sudanese government has been allowing the Arab militia to use government military planes to bomb non-Arab communities. Janjaweed militiamen deploy bombers in the middle of the night on missions to obliterate entire towns. Those who escape do not escape unharmed. The bombs used are designed to produce the maximum amount of carnage possible. Genocide Watch reports that up to 250,000 people have already been killed–either by the Janjaweed or by government bombing raids–and over 2.5 million Sudanese citizens have become homeless, fleeing to refugee camps or to neighboring Chad. As persuasive as preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths may be, United States intervention in Sudan extends beyond saving lives. America–along with the entire world–has already made a commitment to the prevention of genocide.

The single most compelling reason for why the United States is obligated to intervene both diplomatically and militarily in the Sudanese Darfur Genocide Crisis is that we must uphold our international commitment to the eradication of genocide as outlined after the Second World War during the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the 1930s and 40s, the entire world witnessed the atrocities performed by the Nazis against Jews during the Holocaust. At the end of World War II, the United Nations was formed in San Francisco, and on December 9, 1948 the U.N. General Assembly declared that “genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world.” It defined genocide as “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.” The convention also declared that all participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and peacetime. While for an act to be considered genocide it must only meet one of the requirements, the current crisis in Darfur meets all five descriptions. How much longer will it take for us to recognize genocide and eliminate it? Our legal commitment to the punishment of genocide further solidifies the moral obligation our government possesses to end the indiscriminate slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children.

American intervention in Sudan will not only function as a display of compassion and caring on the part of the United States, it will also teach the rest of the world that it is no longer acceptable to ignore human atrocities. A demonstration of international cooperation in Darfur will once again bring the topic of genocide to the forefront of global discourse and open up opportunities for the international community to act on other crimes against humanity. Beyond the political extent of arbitration, the deterrence of genocide is deeply rooted in our ethical values as a nation and as human beings.

It is absolutely imperative that the United States and other nations intervene in Sudan, for the world has agreed genocide to be the most heinous act ever performable by humankind; to ignore genocide is to sanction it.

[edit]

Sources

Retrieved from "http://neveragain.epov.org/Genocide_in_Sudan"