Crisis in Darfur - Coursework Example

Around four years have passed after we have announced Darfur conflict as one of genocide. However the problem still persists and so do the criticismsregarding our policies. Intervention is necessary in order to bring about peace in the region. Being different from the Sudanese Civil War, the current conflict going on in Darfur concerns ethnicity and tribal issues where the critics suggest hat no amount of policy intervention would be correct or apt. Before enlightening you logically about the justification of the steps taken by us regarding the issue, I would like to take the pleasure of informing and updating you regarding some basic details about the war. In keeping with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the number of peacekeepers is on the rise at Darfur. The two sides of the conflict are: the Sudanese Military and the Janjaweed on one side and some rebel groups like the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement on the other. The ethnic non-Arab land tilling groups appoints the later two parties. We have ample proof and information to say that the Sudanese government is helping the Janjaweed and the militia, especially in terms of funds. The desertification of the land by the cutting of trees, drought and problem of excess population have in fact made the problem intense and is one of the factors responsible for the conflict. The nomads, in order to feed their cattle are taking them towards the southern region occupied by the farming groups of Black Americans. The government of Sudan has been involved in the war but has been curbing the figures of death as well as evidence. However according to the US Holocaust Museum, the figures exceed 1 lakh. Around 2.5 millions have been displaced due to the war. These are not mere figures but human lives! We have therefore termed this as the genocide although the United Nations does not agree with the term. In the year 2007, the Sudanese government was accused by UN for participatign in the genocide and the gross violations in Darfur. The President of Sudan has been charged by three accusations of genocide, five accusations of crimes against humanity and two cases of murder by the International Criminal Court. Because eof ethnicity the president is accused to have planned the destruction of three tribal groups in Darfur. This is one of the reasons why Sudan looks upon the UN forces and the peacekeepers as foreign invaders. The blame is on America for following this interventionist policy with respect to the foreign nations. (Walker and Sturcke) The fighting halted in 2006, but the Resolution 1706 was spproved by the UN Security Council and this allowed the UN to send peacekeeping forces (UN-African Union Mission in Darfur or UNAMID) in order to assist the 7000 peacekeeping forces of Sudan who were ill fed and suffering from lack of resources. There the American intervention has been welcome by the common people. We have fixed a target of increasing the peacekeepers in Darfur by around 4000 soldiers within 2008. Nations like Rwandam, Egypt, Ethiopia and Thailand have agreed to participate in bringing about stability in the region of Darfur. Yes, I admit that the havoc, murder and problems persist and the Peace Agreement of Darfur has not worked out to be successful. The elections of Sudan have also reached a “crisis point”. (Security Council Resolution) Althought the conflict has been often described or characterised as a war between the population from the Arab and those from Africa, some confusions still exist rgarding this issue. In this respect it is needfull to distinguish the Arabs of Sudan from those of the Middle East. As we know the Nubiands are the ancestors of the Sudanese Arabs, it is not quite transparent reagrding which tribe the Nubians descended from. Hwoever intermarriages between Nubians and Arabs, the immigration of the later into Sudan practically turned the mdoern days’ Nubians into Arabs and they look similar to Ethiopians. The Janzaweed supported essentialy by the government is supposed to have committed a wide scale violations of human rights including loot, murder and even rape of the non Arabians staying at Darfur. Villages were destroyed and the people who survived took refuge in camps at Darfur and Chad. Most of the forces who surround the camps of Darfur are Janjaweed. A major humanitarian crisis has resulted in the region due to the homelessness of several people and other inflictions upon the society. The conflict was a result of the bursting of the ethno religious bubble in the year 2003. Although the people of Darfurs are irrespectively Muslims we still call this conflict a genocide due to the Arabs and non Arabs factor. Thus the conflict may be looked upon as another instance of threat posed by the fundamentalist Islams to world peace. However in such case at least the victims are to be non Muslims, but that is not the case. Therefore the true cause may be nalysed using the theopries of Homer Dixon and Kaplan. According to the “neo cons” of Washington, Huntington’s well known thesis based on clashes of civilization might be able to solve the intractible wars of the world. Overall the conflict has taken the form of a political, religious as well as ethnic one. America iusing her global power and influence has taken the right decision of supporting United Nations in bringing about peace in the nation. Talking from humanitarian aspect one may be convinced that peace is what the countryneeds at the moment. Some experts do argue that the intervention has increased the incidence of conflict but that cannot put us off. Whether intervened or not the havoc and massacre would have still continued and we have at least managed to bring about certain realization among the common people who are now able to recognize their government better. Intervention policy is almost like state planning and in state planning results might not begin at its initiation but in certain cases of emergencies we cannot ingore the role of the state. We have at least managed to bring about some efforst to counteract what is currently undertaken by the Sudanese government. One might even cite the exampels of Iraq and Afghanistan where killing and loss of lives continue even after US intervention. However, after the Talibans moved away, the comon people have gained socially in terms of freedom and we have been able to return their human rights especially inc ase of women who were always supposed to stay undercover and follow several unjust social restrictions. What this region does not have is money and therefore food, clothing and the bare neecessities for survival. United States has always been there providing funds in cases of various crisis around the world. So this is not new and if our contribution can pull out the cause of the war then it needs to be considered by all of us. According to Homer Dixon, all future wars or conflicts may be explained by the crisis of resources like water, fish, forests etc and also certain wars led by refugees. The structure of the world is becoming more and more complicated and gradually its problems and therefore the solutions are also growing intense and more difficult to formulate. He calls his theory the ‘Ingenuity Gap’, where he talks about the lapse between the problems and our inability to address them on time. He is worried about the growth in population and the environment as well as the civil wars and international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. (Homer-Dixon) All these pertain to the condition we find in Darfur. Therefore, the root of the conflict may be addressed by US just like the way we have assisted other regions in times of crisis. There is currently a huge gap in the political scenario of Darfur and the US diplomats might try to capitalize on that and also show the right way and the path of freedom to the common people by showing them the failure and selfish moves of their government. Even Kaplan theorized the situation of West Africa as “Disease, overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources, refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of nation-states and international borders, and the empowerment of private armies, security firms…are now most tellingly demonstrated through a West African prism” (Adibe). Critics continue to say that such intervention would bring about politicization of power and therefore is about to bring about more dependency on the foreign power and thus lead to destruction eventually. Keeping in mind the massacre and the crisis, which is aggravating day by day, the only prime necessity is to put a stop to these killing and hence gathering relief funds to save the lives of millions of people. At this juncture, there were two options before us to choose from. Firstly, we could wait for the government of Sudan to decide the fate of the current conflict and the second option is where we can take the rein in our hands to some extent and do what we can to satisfy the humanitarian needs of the situation. We may issue protection for the people of Darfur through international intervention. It takes time however for the peacemaking process to be successful because the peacemakers need to be brought together and integrated into a single force. Being a primary member of the UN and looking at our present position, America is in a position to adopt the leading position. On one hand USA has a large military base to support the intervention process and on the other, it is bounded by the Genocide Convention to hold back and even punish such crimes as genocide. Besides the strength of its satellite system enables the nation to transfer soldiers and supplies of logistics required to enable the peacemaking process. The activities of the government and the two opposing forces can be tracked easily with the help of satellites. The troops located in the region may be mobilized quickly into action when needed. Moreover if we take the lead then several African and European countries will probably participate. These states include Ethiopia, Uganda and Rwanda, which belong to the Genocide Convention itself. Thus, if we take the leadership, a multinational approach may be taken and the genocide will be likely to be stopped effectively. Although critical intervention talks against the policy of US and the government of Khartoum believes that the United States has intervened for its own interests especially due to the oil wealth of Sudan. Even if we assume this to be true, that is, supposing that we are actually after the oil wealth, one cannot deny in any way the moral and ethical obligation we are facing and also the benefit we can bestow upon the innocent people. Just stepping back to save our name and relieving us from the accusation of chasing the oil wealth would not be human and ideal to do at this moment. Therefore, we are primarily responsible now for those millions of lives in Darfur, which may be saved to some extent once we carry on the process of mobilizing the multinational efforts to bring a halt to the genocide. (Nafso) At the verge of this genocide, we, an international power cannot be sitting idle. I cannot say that we are putting the troops there for charity and for no interests to our nation. Offcourse, it is of diplomatic interest to us and here we may have the critics correct, but where we have won our point is that the intervention in Sudan would be moral and humanitarian from our position and from a universal perspective. Killing is inhuman and unethical following the views of the great philosophies and even the basic moral sense we possess. Standing by and watching the mass killing is not expected from a world power and neither it is human enough to be respected. The other good thing about the intervention is that the nation is indirectly helping out the minorities involved in the fight. We are preventing the corrupted government from destroying innocent lives and taking advantage of their power. Yes, benefits might accrue to us in the near future and political advantage may also be showered upon us, but at this moment our only concern is to address the cause of humanity and do what we think is right. Also, the ill reputation that our nation has earned in her intervention process with respect to the other Islam nations also needs to be cleared. We therefore vow to fight for the cause of saving the nation and millions of life from death and displacement solely for the cause of protecting humanity and setting the example of an ideal world power before the other nations to follow suit. Work cited 1. Adibe, Clement E. Once Bitten, Twice Shy: The Evolution of U.S. Policy on the Crisis in the Darfur Region of Sudan, International Studies Association, All Academic, 2007, retrieved on October 7, 2008 from: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/0/8/6/pages180868/p180868-1.php 2. Homer-Dixon, Thomas, The Ingenuity Gap: Facing the Economic, Environmental, and Other Challenges of an Increasingly Complex and Unpredictable World, Knopf, 2000 3. Kuperman, Alan J. The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2001 4. Nafso, Tommy F. Death And Destruction In Darfur: A Pragmatic Approach To Stopping Genocide, retrieved on October 7, 2008 from: http://www2.oakland.edu/oujournal/files/wi2006_darfur.pdf 5. Security Council Resolution, “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General”, Geneva, 2005. available at: http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf 6. Walker, Peter and Sturcke, James, Darfur genocide charges for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, 2008, retrieved on October 7, 2008 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/sudan.warcrimes1?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews Read More