The Crisis in Darfur - Case Study Example

The crisis in Darfur Barely does a day pass without a mention of human rights violation around the world. Rights violations are increasing by the dayand no particular country can be exempt from its responsibility. In fact, it may be appreciated that every country worth its name has had an episode of gross human rights violations in its history. Much debate has been going on regarding the maintenance of human rights. While nations commonly accuse each other of gross rights violations, they are the most reluctant to try and set their own human rights record straight. In fact, a number of seemingly rational reasons like maintenance of personal freedom, adherence to social balance, and maintenance of law and order are the common refrains that can be heard from people who believe that human rights are being given more importance than that it ideally should get in the international scene. There are many concerns that are debated when human rights issues are raised in the international forums. Often it has been seen that human rights issues have been used as a convenient tool to corner nations that are out of favor with the power blocks of the world. Darfur in Sudan has been in the news recently for gross violation of human rights that is happening in the country. The crisis that started in 2003 attained international significance when the government of the country was alleged to be abetting human rights violation. The country faced severe censure in many international forums and was criticized for the way in which it handled the issue. The crisis The crisis started when rebel forces attacked government installations accusing it of ignoring the black population of the country in favor of people of Arab origin. In retaliation, the Sudanese government forces and militia of Arab origin, also called as the Janjaweed, has let loose a campaign of terror that has so far claimed about 200,000 lives and left about four million people homeless. The crimes perpetuated on the black population include murder and atrocities on women in addition to arson and plunder. It has been reported that the militia surround refugee camps and attack refugees if they venture too far away from the camp. Even though military were deployed to control the militia many human rights groups claim that the military acts in collusion with the Janjaweed. Opposing the military and Janjaweed is the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement, both of which have volunteers recruited from the local black tribes. [BBC, 2007] The Sudanese government has interfered in international operations that have focused on solving the issue and have tampered with evidence that could have bought war criminals to book. It must be noted that the Janjaweed was put into action by the government who had lost many battles to the rebels that started the war. The military forces were ill equipped in desert tactics and had other duties to attend to. Therefore they became less focused and lost almost all the battles that they waged with the rebels. As a result, the government armed the Janjaweed, which was a group of nomadic herdsmen who were unleashed into the land of the rebels. The Janjaweed indulged in gross human rights violations that people in the area were forced to retreat to safer havens. The conflict in Darfur is also unique in that it is a clash between Muslims unlike in other areas of the world. How the crisis can be stopped The crisis in Darfur is a case of state sponsored terrorism and reveals that the government can resort to extreme measures to quell insurgency. The fact that innocent people are caught in the crossfire is of extreme significance. Even though the UN-mediated forces tried their hand to quell the violence, the initiative was discouraged by the Sudanese government, which gave the impression that the UN forces would be considered as invaders. This shows that the conflict is indeed sponsored by the government and that the violence has its full sanctions. There are some measures that could be taken to quell the violence. Enhance the efficacy of the UN The UN represents a world association of recognized countries that have come together to demonstrate a collective will to solve mutual problems and move forward towards progress. The main idea behind the formation of the United Nations, as its name signifies, is to present a united stance, or to behave as a unified force against common adversities that could cascade into an international disaster. Over the years, much hope and trust has been vested on the UN and many believed that the UN would remain as an independent and impartial observer of the world realities, and would act in a manner that is free of bias and prejudices; as is expected out of an international body of repute. However, the performance of the UN as an independent and impartial body is increasingly being viewed skeptically by a growing number of nations, particularly those that are not in favor with the superpowers like the US and the UK. In fact, it may be suspected that the combined interests of the US and the UK and their allies have in fact, hijacked the initiative of the UN for its own self actualizing compulsions in the international and domestic forum. In fact, the US openly declared that it would violate the guidelines of the UN if the UN did not behave in accordance with US interests in the campaign against Iraq. The fact that the UK slavishly follows the US in both words and deeds, prompts the outside world to doubt the validity of this ostentatious international body that is repeatedly failing to live up to its expectations. The world in general is increasingly being led to believe that the UN is a stooge of the US and not a powerful body that has the power to mediate decisively between nations. It might be seen that the UN also has defaulted as far as the issue of human rights are concerned. Recent incidents show that the UN is either compelled or is happy to adopt a selective approach as far as human rights issues are concerned. Many countries that had somehow felt that the UN would fulfill its role as a powerful moderator of peace and human dignity were left with a feeling of being cheated and they find that this international organization is more a formal body without practical powers, than a powerful mediator with a decisive opinion in international matters, at least in the case of human rights [Muravchik Joshua, 2002] The UN charter was drafted during the last stages of the world war and even though there were many proposals like the bill of rights that were to be included in the original draft, limitations of time prevented it from being incorporated into the final draft. The draft that was subsequently approved covered a wide range of rights of the citizen and had about thirty sections that speak of the basic rights for a human being. “The UDHR sets out, in 30 articles, the fundamental freedoms to be promoted and protected. The rights are often listed in two categories The first are the traditional rights which appear in documents such as the Magna Carta and the US Bill of Rights and which protect the individual from the government. These rights include: the right to life, liberty and security of person; freedom from torture and slavery; political participation; the right to own property; the right to equality and freedom before the law, freedom of movement; and freedom of opinion, expression, thought, conscience and religion. The second category is rights which have been recognized in the past century and which impose obligations on governments actively to help their citizens. These rights include: the right to social security; the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment; the right to equal pay for equal work; the right to form and join trade unions; the right to rest and leisure, and holidays with pay; the right to education; everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” [Suter Keith, 1998]. It may be seen that the initial draft allowed a lot of provisions that would guarantee basic human rights to the citizen of a country. However, what is happening is that countries which do not have enough lobbying power in the UN are often left to fend for themselves and their citizens are not even considered for international mediation. World nations must take more interest in poor countries Most developed nations are not interested in the affairs of poorer nation unless it generates some economic returns for them. The most recent example is that of the Kurds in Iraq. While the United States and its ally, the UK went on a mud slinging campaign against Saddam Hussein on the atrocities committed on the Kurds in the Northern parts of Iraq, it conspicuously remained silent about the atrocities committed by Israel on the Palestinians; nor were there any mention of the Irish in the UK. The world saw selective criticism at its ugliest form and the ironic fact is that the UN was a party to it: deliberately or not. The rights violations that are happening in the US against minorities will never surface in the UN, thanks to a strong lobby that seems immune to the its own faults in the human rights front. President George Bush Senior sums up this perverted mentality in a very few obstinate words “I will never apologize for the United States of America-I dont care what the facts are.” [The Hindu, 2003]. The world nations have been keeping quite in the case of Darfur and are not ready to intervene in the country because there are no resources that can be exploited from the country. The enhanced awareness of people has however not helped to curb human rights violations and that is where the repression of the state comes into being. The events in Darfur have shown that in spite of the knowledge that human rights violations can cause international repercussions, the government could go about with its agenda of blatant human rights repression with out any fear of the consequences or global reaction. Many observers believe that the situation in Darfur had been handled poorly by the UN. The fact that the UN could not prevent violence immediately is a mute pointer to the reality that this international body, either due to pressures of the situation, or due to the consideration that it had to pay to the international forces, could remain only as a formal enforcer of peace while people were tortured or killed in the streets. [Black, Charles L. Jr, 1999, Orend, Brian, 2002] Enhance the economic conditions and administration of Sudan Even if the UN has been indicted for being inactive, the fact that the UN cannot implement its human rights policies effectively is also due to the reason that the local administration in Sudan is not conducive to maintain a respectable level of human rights. This is partly because of the poor economic conditions in Sudan where people can be easily attracted to militancy because of their poor state. Hence what is needed more than a military intervention is a program that can ensure better economic conditions or avenues for development so that the attention of the people is diverted from destruction to self development and national improvement. If such a program can be implemented with the able support of the government, the Darfur crisis can be resolved in the interest of the country. Works Cited Q&A: Sudans Darfur conflict. BBC News. Retrieved May 2, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm Suter, Keith. (1998). The fiftieth anniversary of the declaration of human rights. Contemporary Review. The Hindu, (24 Aug. 2003), The loneliness of Noam Chomsky. The Hindu Magazine. Black, Charles L. Jr. (June 1999). A new birth of freedom: Human Rights, named and unnamed, Yale University Press.175 pages. Orend, Brian. (June 2002). Human Rights, Broadview Press. 272 pages. Muravchik, Joshua. (2002). The UN on the loose. Commentary Magazine. Issue: July-August, 2002. Read More