Darfur Sudan. Many Americans don't even know where that is. For many in Darfur, it is hell on earth. An estimated 2.6 million people have been effected by mass killings, torture, rape, the destruction of villages, theft and other human rights abuses. After the Holocaust the world said "never again". After the genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the world said "never again" And after Rwanda, the world said, "it depends". Well, I guess that's where the people of Darfur are. The United States has recognized that what is going on in Darfur is a genocide. It has been going on since February 2003. Why is it still going on? Two guest bloggers below, Nana K., and Thomas T., offer their views...Sudan Is our Problem
By Nana K. (Okomfo Anokye)
Sudan an Eastern African country gained its independence in 1956. War has raged in Sudan for at least 38 out of its 49 years of independence. The most recent round of fighting has been going on since 1989. Since February 2003, the war has assumed a new dimension. In Darfur, a region of Western Sudan, over 180,000 people have been killed and over 1.8million people have been displaced (http://amnesty.org/). What is going on in Sudan today is a modern-day form of genocide. The government in Khartoum, Sudan is supporting the oppression and the killing of Sudanese nationals in order to maintain its reign. The global community with America as a hegemony has done nothing to help end the crisis.
A casual observer might ask the following questions. Who cares about some war in Africa? Has America not involved itself in too many conflicts? Are our soldiers not being killed overseas? As we live in constant danger of terrorism, should we not worry about our own welfare first? Engaging in foreign wars is killing our economy? If those “primitive” Africans are stupid to fight among themselves and killing each other, is that our problem?
Despite these concerns and fears and contrary to what we want to believe, Darfur is our problem. The critics will say “that is the most ridiculous thing we have ever heard”. Unfortunately it is not a ridiculous assertion. Darfur is our problem because we have a social-moral obligation under the Geneva Convention, through our US foreign policy we have supported and funded the warring factions, and our socio-economic well-being at risk.
The United States is a signatory to the 1948 Genocide Convention therefore; the US has a moral responsibility to fight against all acts of genocide. In Article 1 of the convention, it states clearly that genocide is a crime under international law and that all signatories will prevent and punish it.1 Clearly, under the convention, we are obligated to put an end to any inhumane acts regardless of the racial or ethnic identities of the group being oppressed. Under the 1949 Geneva Convention Common, Articles 3 and 147, all governments of the world are obliged to bring to book any perpetuators of inhuman treatment.2 The United States and the World as a whole have failed to live up to our responsibilities to safe-guard the rights of the people of Darfur.
So what? Who cares? Are we the only ones who have failed? Why does the world want to pin the problem of Darfur on the United States?
The US regretful to say has played a much larger role in maintaining and sustaining the genocide. The US government has indirectly funded the Khartoum government’s war. Between 1998 and 1999, the United States gave the Sudanese government $42 million in development assistance.3 In 2001, the United States also gave Sudan $27 million dollars in aid.4 No matter how altruistic the US government’s intention was, it is a widely accepted fact that that foreign aid is not always used for its intended purposes.
So why did we and do we still give Sudan aid? Well, one of the reasons is that Sudan is our ally against terrorism. In 1996, Sudan expelled Osama Bin Laden and they even wanted to hand him over to the Clinton administration, but we declined because of lack of indictable evidence.5 In President’s Bush’s September 20th speech, he was quoted as saying “Terrorists want to overthrow exiting governments in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia.etc. They want to drive out Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. America therefore should support its allies with security assistance”. 6 Aside from funding the government, the US has been supporting the other rebel movements in the south icluding the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army (SPLM). The United States package to help the SPLM can be found in the House of Representatives legislature known as the Sudan Peace Act. Under the Legislature, the US government pledges to provide $10 million dollars in assistance to Sudanese opposition forces.7 The Christian Right is also placing tremendous pressure on the US government to support Christian groups like the SPLM/SPLA that are being threatened by Islam.8 Supporting the opposition will not stop the war, it will rather give them less incentive to end their armed struggled. Moreover, the SPLM soldiers are not saints, they have committed atrocities in Sudan including killing, looting and raping. Instead of curtailing the war, the United States is feeding it.
Though the problem in Darfur is geographically isolated from the United States, the effect that the repercussions of the war has on the US is greater than we want to accept. The United States imports approximately 17% of its from sub-Saharan Africa.9 Due to the crisis in the Middle East, the United States is focusing on Africa as its primary source of its oil. The Sudanese oil fields pump out at least $500 million a year. According to recent media reports Sudan will soon raise its oil output to 500,000 barrels per day.10 Since the US economy is negatively affected by oil shocks, it is in the best interest to stabilize its oil sources including Sudan to prevent any further mishaps to the fragile economy.
The refugees running from Sudan are also becoming burdens to the countries in which they are seeking asylum. These countries that have young developing economies like Ghana cannot sustain the pressure being induced upon them by the refuges. If these young economies are not safeguarded, they will collapse and the countries will be back begging at the feet of America.
In terms of terrorism, the Khartoum government is putting the whole world at risk. It is inculcating into the minds of young Sudanese that the war in Darfur is a holy war against the infidels. The government is therefore brainwashing these kids to join an unfounded Jihad. When the war in Sudan comes to an end what is our assurance that these brainwashed kids would not traverse the globe to implement their unfounded Jihad of the sword.
Contrary to what many politicians and social commentators would like you to believe Darfur is indeed an American problem. The United Sates can no longer afford to be apathetic or passive about what is going on in Western Sudan. We have meddled too much in Sudanese politics to extent that we cannot just pack up and leave. In concert with the global community we must work to find a long-lasting solution to the crisis.
Notes:
1The United Nations Text of Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
2 The Geneva Convention of 1949.
3Aid at a Glance for Recipient Countries and Territories Index of Charts “The Development Assistance Committee (DAC), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED) Aid recipient chart.
4 US Agency for International Development.
5 Sudan’s Perfect War by Randolph Martin http: //www.foreignaffairs.org.
6 Stop Subsidizing Terrorism by Brett Schaefer http:// www.heritage.org.
7 Sudan’s Perfect War by Randolph Martin http;//www.foreignaffairs.org.
8The Christian Right and American Foreign Policy by William Martin, Sudan’s Perfect War by Randolph Martin http;//www.foreignaffairs.org.
9Africa’s Oil Boom and the Poor by Ian Gray.
10Sudan to Raise Oil Output to 500,000 :-the New Vision.
Genocide IS Our Problem
By Thomas T.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide calls genocide “a crime under international law which [member countries] undertake to prevent and to punish.”[1] Because the United States has committed to preventing and stopping genocide by joining this Convention, it must act when it recognizes that genocide is occurring. The United States has made a promise to the world. In 1994, a 100-day genocide in Rwanda cost the lives of more than 800,000 people, as the world sat idly by. The international community had blood on its hands, and we resolved to prevent it from happening again. It’s happening again in Darfur. Because Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush have labeled the actions in Darfur as genocide,[2] we are legally entitled and morally obligated to do something to stop it. If we break these promises, we will be partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
In order to understand why we have been weak in stopping the genocide, we must understand the government’s reason for non-intervention. The United States government believes it has strategic interest to not intervene with the genocide in Darfur, because it fears losing an ally in the War on Terror.[3] The administration continues to believe that another ally is more important than innocent peoples’ lives.
Now call me old fashioned, but I still believe that the strategic interest with Sudan cannot justify any inaction in the prevention of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people a year. While we must work to make sure that Sudan continues to help us on the War on Terror, we cannot simply ignore the genocide in order to do so. If we choose to ignore the plight of the Darfuri people because of our interests, we would be condemning the Darfuris to a world of pain and death. We would be assisting in the rape and murder of innocent civilians. And how again are we supposed to be morally superior to Al Qaeda?
The violence is not over, and the killings will not stop without international dedication. Just last week there were reports of 1,500 men attacking six villages in Darfur. Two million people still cannot or have not returned to their homes due to the fear of continued attacks.[4] The Darfuri people live in terror, and we cannot abandon them. Morally, how could it even be possible that we even consider breaking our promise to stop the violence that continues to occur to the Darfuris like we did to the Rwandans?
Some opponents to intervention legitimately argue that we do not want to send any more American troops to any more conflicts. Now, I agree that because of our country’s current situation, we do not want to lose any more American troops than we have already. Sending in Americans would likely cause more problems than it would solve, especially because the Arab World would likely describe the American intervention as another imperialist attack on a Muslim country (while ignoring the fact that the Darfur refugees are mostly Muslim). The African Union, however, has been willing to do the job. African countries have decided to send their own troops to stabilize the country, but they lack the resources to do their job to the best of their ability. Even though they have insufficient numbers, are inadequately equipped, and suffer from a weak mandate, they have been reasonably successful in deterring theft, rape, and other types of violence by their presence.[5] While attacks like the ones last week still occur, they have decreased in frequency (but are still at high enough levels to terrify refugees). Imagine, though, what the African Union could do if they had the resources that they needed.
The United States can easily provide the African Union soldiers with what they need, without ruining its relations with the Sudanese government. In fact, the United States and the international community have been calling for more action and larger numbers from the African Union. An international call against Sudan has already been made, and all we would be doing is putting our money where our mouth is. This would not likely harm relations between Washington and Khartoum intolerably.
By helping fund the peacekeepers at a cost of less than three hundred million dollars a year (a miniscule amount when compared to other United States government projects), the United States could help the African Union have phones in its offices, fuel for its vehicles, and money to pay the salaries of its soldiers.[6][7] In the words of an AU official, “The international community, UN, European Union and NATO can't ask us to increase our force in Darfur and then not come up with the money.”[8] We have the means to cutting down and ending the violence. We do not need to use our own soldiers, but rather to monetarily support those that are already there. How could we morally refuse do this? There is no reasonable excuse. We already have Rwandan blood on our hands. Do we really want to add Darfuri blood to the mix?
[1] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” <http://www.law-ref.org/GENOCIDE/index.html> Nov. 11, 2005
[2] “Powell Calls Sudan Killings Genocide” Sept. 9, 2004 <http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/09/09/sudan.powell/> Nov. 11, 2005
[3] Ooldenberg, Susan. “Sudan Becomes US Ally in ‘War on Terror’” April 30, 2005 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1473788,00.html> Nov. 11, 2005
[4] “Sudan: Killings Reported in South Darfur, says UN” Nov. 11, 2005 <http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/b2ceb1ad579a9759febf5e197941f268.htm> Nov. 11, 2005
[5] O’Neill, William G. and Cassis, Violette. “Protecting Two Million Internally Displaced: The Successes and Shortcomings of the African Union in Darfur” The Brookings Institution. <http://www.brookings.edu/fp/projects/idp/200511_au_darfur.pdf> Nov. 11, 2005.
[6] Blog entry from an aid worker in Darfur. July 27, 2005. <http://sleeplessinsudan.blogspot.com/2005/07/its-back-to-khartoum-this-morning-and.html> Nov. 11, 2005.
[7] “SUDAN: African Union short of funds for Darfur mission” Aug. 18, 2005. <http://www.irinnews.org/print.asp?ReportID=48634> Nov. 11, 2005.
[8] “SUDAN: African Union short of funds for Darfur mission” Aug. 18, 2005. <http://www.irinnews.org/print.asp?ReportID=48634> Nov. 11, 2005.
25 comments:
to both blogers, well written and with good supporting data. I hate to say it but it seems that the US government will only be interested in Sudan so long as the oil keeps flowing.
It is indeed unfortunate. I am however very glad that you are cognizant that oil has a role in the crisis that is going. Some people say that it has nothing to do with oil. I believe these people are wrong. Oil may not be the x-factor, but it is one of the factors contributing to the current crisis. It is my hope that the leaders of the world would stop from bankrolling the Khartoum government just because thay want to protect their share of the Sudanese oil.
It is indeed unfortunate. I am however very glad that you are cognizant that oil has a role in the crisis. Some people say that it has nothing to do with oil. I believe these people are wrong. Oil may not be the x-factor, but it is one of the factors contributing to the current crisis. It is my hope that the leaders of the world would stop from bankrolling the Khartoum government just because thay want to protect their share of the Sudanese oil.
Thomas and Nanna:
I think that we do need to act with a strong force against the genocide in Sudan. It is both our legal responsibility and moral responsibility. Thomas does have a point by saying that direct US interaction would increase the moral of the terrorist movement against Western intervention and therefore think that we should back the African Union with their efforts. This would exclude the US from direct involvement, but give the African Union the tools they need to succeed.
James makes a sad, true point. Oil is most likely the only reason we are even looking in the direction of Sudan or anywhere else in the world for that matter. This is a different issue that could be discussed at length in another blog session. We need to act to stop the genocide in Sudan fast, without stalling with technical debate. Genocide is occurring, it needs to stop and we need to do WHATEVER it takes to stop it. Anything less would be a crime that we would have to pay for. We have the power to use or give to others to use, lets move out and end this crisis.
I agree with both Thomas and Matt when they say that an African intervention force with some Western assistance is the best solution for this crisis.
Unfortunately I believe there is some foreign-war fatigue in some countries of Africa. I will use the Ghanaian example. Ghana has been sending troops all over the world when there is a crisis. Ghana was part of ECOMOG(Liberia intervention force), we were in Rwanda, Burma,...etc. Name a war inside and outside Africa and 99% of the time the Ghanaian government has sent troops to intervene. Even in times of military dictatorship, the dictators allowed Ghanaian troops to go for peacekeeping missions. Sometimes in Ghana, we are afraid that our national security is as at risk. Our concern rises out of the fact that we are always sending our soldiers outside the country, when they are supposed to be protecting as against foreign intruding forces. Sometimes the national television shows the caskets of the soldiers we have lost, and the entire nation mourns over their loss. Despite all our concerns, human losses and our woes, Ghana continues to export its soldiers.
We, Ghanaians have never started any war in any part of the world yet we are always somewhere fighting the wars of other people.
No matter our reservations and the socio-economic cost of our involvement in foreign wars, we Ghanaians feel we have a moral-responsibility to safeguard the rights of the oppressed.
I do find it unfortunate that it's only been mainly Ghanians that have been willing to bear the brunt of the intervention work. What I find even more unfortunate is that they normally don't even get the materials that they need from those unwilling to send troops. How can it be that we continue to abandon those that need our help so that they can help others.
While i agree with both Thomas and Nana, i think that the blame is being unfairly place on the US shoulders. Recently Bolton, the US representative to the UN has been calling for more and more pressure against Sudan. Recently the assistant secretary to the state department almost got in a fist fight with a local Sudanese official. I'll be it this could be too little way too late, but atleast the US is starting to see this as a problem and that is a step in the right direction. Part of the problem is it is really trendy to oppose the US when they say that there should be economic sanctions or military threats against another country. The whole world community seems unwilling to allow a military intervention. Even now, with militants entering the very camps that the international community has set up to treat and care for these displaced peoples, even killing some, the world is not yet ready to intervene.
Rosalyn,
I do think that part of the problem is that the United States (and the world for that matter) sees Darfur as a humanitarian crisis. The UN awhile back called Darfur "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," which reflects the belief that Darfur is a humanitarian problem rather than a political conflict. Unfortunately, this type of approach focuses mostly on the symptons of the problem, rather than the problem itself.
While humanitarian aid is definitely needed, I don't think we should be ignoring the military aid that the African Union needs. We should try to stop the Sudanese militas and the rebel armies from committing the atrocities, rather than clean up the mess after they do.
Matt G does have a point when it claims that it is not solely the US who should be blamed for a lack of response, but if enough time is spent by Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell to declare a genocide in Darfur, I think that time should be used to plan out how to assist people in that region.
"An international law expert said the statement does not require the United States to act, but establishes a basis for it to intervene under international law."
However, the international community also has a responsibility to respond, for example China who is siphoning off large amounts of the oil industry
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=7165
what about all those nations who's local economies are benefited by exploiting Sudan's resources - do they have no moral responsibility to offer some support to the Sudanese people?
Perhaps what bothers me more is 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine'politics do not apply to regions like Sudan. Certain government affidavits during the Clinton administration said there was no strategic reason to intervene. But of course Sudan became US 'responsibility' because it harboured a well developed terrorist network.
Even after Sudan attempted to foster better relations and supported the war against terror, flushing out Osama Bin Laden and other suspected terrorists, it has had no effect in increasing international support. As long as the immediate threat to US security has been curtailed, Sudan will have to try and solve its own problems.
What support has relationships with 'superpowers' like China and the US done for Sudan? In Sudan's time of turmoil, does the US only 'police' regions that it has strategic interests in and is that how far our moral responsibility stretches?
Matt G,
Yes, I agree that it is totally wrong to put such a huge portion of the responsibility on the United States. However, as a hegemon the United States is the supposed to be the leader in global issues. It is an accepted fact that when the United Sates talks everyone stops and listens. I do not expect the US to lead an "army of the Lord" into Darfur to rescue the perishing however, it is my hope that the US government will do at least something. I will be great if the US could force the hand of other nations to interfere in the crisis. Again remember. everyone listens to the US.
Nana,
I agree with you that the genocide in Sudan is an American problem, for several reasons. Primarily, America should respond becuase of the horrible and unjust actions that are occuring, but unfortunately morality isnt as important to our politicians as it should be. Secondly, we are bound by the United Nations to take action in situations such as these, and finally although this may not be morally correct, we have interest in Sudan. Their oil production should entice us to remain active in these times of genocide. Although we might be fighting for the wrong reasons, the oil might be exactly what Sudan needs to gain the military aid of America.
Jeff L.
Thomas,
Just to play devil's advocate. . . you had mentioned that we can not use the excuse of "saving an ally" as a reason to stay out of Sudan. You also said that you cant see how saving a military ally, is worth the thousands of innocent lives. Now Say for example, that by staying out of Sudan we remained militarily friendly and by entering we cut off any union we had. Isn't it possible that by cutting off a military ally, one that aids in our fight agaisnt terrorism, we could inturn affect the lives of our own citizens in a way? that's just a question to think about.
Jeff L.
I thought I'd bring this latest BBC article to everyone's attention about the unrest in Uganda -- once one of the "African darlings". The main presidential opposition challenger, Ret. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye was just arrested. This does not look good for Uganda....it does not look good for Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4438090.stm
Jeff,
You're right that we must be cautious about losing Sudan as an ally against terrorism. But as Nana suggests, the Sudanese government is actually fueling the sort of dangerous fanaticism that we're fighting, while it is pretending to be friendly to the United States. Sudan helps us with intelligence because they know that means we won't stop their genocide (and it's commonly believed that the Sudanese government is funding/controlling the militia groups that are carrying out the genocide). Sudan is essentially producing people with the hate-mentality of terrorists, while it is supposedly helping us track them down. It won't take much for them to turn on us (look at Al Qaeda), so I don't think that the United States should be allowing their creation. But you are right when you say that it's a tricky situation.
Another article to bring to your attention -- an op-ed in the New York Times about women in Africa. A great read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/opinion/16wed4.html?th&emc=th
Rosalyn,
Providing American citizens more in formation about what is going on in Darfur has the potential of increasing the chances of US intervention. Yes, media reports on Darfur have declined and shifted else, due to the nature of today's geo-politics. However, there are numerous other information sources that have accounts on what is going on in Darfur. As citizens of a globalizing world, I do not think we should be forced fed information. I believe we should take the intiative to be educated. However, that notion is too ideal for today's world.
If the History Channel and National Geographic present new reports on the crisis in Darfur, that might raise public awareness. But let us face facts, how many people watch the History Channel on a regular basis. As for National Geographic, I have a personal bias against them sometimes. Some of their reports on Africa have been very humiliating. My freshman year,I was watching a National Geographic coverage on the activities of lions in East Africa. Part of the footage showed a bunch of semi-nude African men chasing after a Lion in order to retrieve the carcass of an animal it has killed. The reason that the segment was included was to show that the native folks compete with the lions for carcasses. I was like way to perpetuate a stereotype. National Geographic never presented a program which showed some of the upsides of the semi-modernized African continent.
In terms of who else should raise awareness, I look at myself and say, me and other Africans have failed our brothers from Darfur
Jeff,
You are right. Morality is not a key component of politics. Human beings will act in anyway to serve their own interests. Human beings hate to go out of their comfort zone to help other people. I might appear to be a skeptic of the human race but now I just like to face facts than live in a fallacious ideal utopian world.
However sometimes I take solace in a quote used sometines when the world remembers the Holocaust
"We need to look squarely at the dark side of human behaviour, at the same time, hold onto the vision of human possibility." (Snow, Mack, Burt, 1991)
The Creed of a Holocaust Survivor
A poem by survivor Alexander Kimel.
"I do believe, with all my heart,
In the natural Goodness of Man.
Despite the blood and destruction,
Brought by one man, trying to be God,
In the Goodness of Man, I do believe...
Despite those optimistic views on humans and life
I will like to bring you a quote from Papa Roach Sars (Getting Away With Murder):" The scars remind us the past is real......
In terms of what is happening in Uganda, I beliebe that the African Union should condemn the actions of Yoweri Museveni. There should be no more pussy-footing !!!!
I think it's unfortunate that Museveni arrested his opponent. Dr. D fears violence will break out in Uganda as a result. I spent a year in Uganda when I was 10, this is sad to hear.
Ghanaians have put their lives on the line for the protection of the oppressed and I think the US should do the same. If we want to be a world leader we should join hands with our Ghanaian friends and others willing to help and at least supply them with the right equipment to do what they think is the right thing to do. We need to learn from them. I think it's outrageous that the US hasn't fully backed some sort of international intervention policy, and I mean fully backing one. We make economical and UN corruption arguments against such as international policy but I honestly think that if other countries saw the US, the country that typically only acts for its own interest, doing something for others on a large, effective scale, for the sole reason of helping those in need, Im convinced that other countries would join, decreasing the burden on the US.
Darfur needs to be stopped, no exceptions! We need to act quickly to help meet the equipment needs of the African Union so they can get the job done. Then, the Sudanese government needs to be rapidly punished by the international community.
We said "Never Again" after WWII and "Never Again" after Rwanda. If we're not going to act and learn from our past failures, what is the point of acting like we care.....
"Efforts to increase African capacity for peace operations and conflict resolution raise the question of whether these initiatives are aimed at building greater overall capacities to deal with conflict; or are intended to reduce the direct involvement of developed states in Africa. It is a fair question, given the overall reduction in developed states’ participation in UN-led peace operations in Africa. 100 nations contribute forces to UN peacekeeping, but contributions from developed nations have declined since the 1990s. Today the top 16 nations, those contributing more than 1,000 personnel each to UN operations, are all from developing states – led by Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Ghana."
As you can see, when nations make references to developed countries as being those reluctant to help in protecting the rights of the world's oppressed, it is not a fallacious argument.
:-UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 31
August 2004.
Peacekeeping in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities
House International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Africa
Friday, October 8, 2004
It may come across to some people that I am being too critical of the US involvement in Sudan. To some, I may appear as not being appreciative of the US soldier or be aware of the impact that the war is having on American families. That is so far from the truth. My best-friend from Ghana moved to the United States some 5-6 years ago. He naturalized and became a citizen of the USA. Today he is a member of the US army. He has seen active service in South Korea and next year, he is going to Afghanistan. Whenever he is about to leave for a mission, the conversation we have is similar to saying last minute good-byes. We know that we might never see each other again. He has a daughter and I am the child's godfather. I believe I have a first person account on what it means to see a loved one going to a war.
I however believe that we cannot and should not be idle as other people are being murdered by evil and selfish leaders
Side note: With my criticism of the Sudanese government I better not apply for a Visa to go there.
While i do agree that it would be nice if the United States was able to get a international policy on intervention into play and really stick to it, i don't think that strong direct or indirect intervention by the US would be a strong move politically. As a caring individual, i would love to see the US step in and forcably make everyone stop killing eachother, but that is not going to happen. Not only would it go against the US's attempt to hold up strong anti-terrorist governments through economic backing, i don't think that the United States would fare will by putting more trouble on the groung in Islamic States. I read an interesting article today in the New York Times, talking about how even though Jordanians think that the killing of innocent Jordanian's by Al Qeada in Mesepotamia, they still support Al Zarqawi because they see the US occupation in Iraq as an attack on Islam. I think the last think the US needs right now are more reasons for people to think they are waging war on Islam. Its hard to say, but it seems like anyone but the US would be better off trying to intervene. I guess the problem becomes, who will and who can, and that list seems pretty short.
Another article that I thought you might like to read about the deteriorating situation in East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701570.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Matt G,
I understand your concerns and fears of the consequences of any US role or involvement in Sudan. Your fears are indeed justified. However you have also pointed out that aside from the United States, there are very few options that we can turn to.
Well we could ask the former colonizers of Sudan, Egypt and Great Britain to intervene. Egypt unfortunately has a semi-violent internal crisis of its own. There are some Islamic extremists who have attempted and are still attempting to destabilize the government of Egyptian President Mubarak. Therefore we can sort of rule Egypt out. How about Great Britain? Great Britain has supported the United States in almost all of its attempts to counter terrorism. Prime Minister Tony Blair stood by the United States when the US decided to invade Iraq. Due to the involvement of GB in the war against terrorism, there have been increased terrorists attacks in Great Britain (GB). This summer the whole world saw the pictures of the bombing of British public transport infrastructure. So you see, there are unfortunately other countries bearing the brunt of eliminating terrorism as well.
Okay whom else do we have on the list? Let us go to the Middle East and Persia. Let us ask for Islamic or Muslin countries for help. Well Jordan cannot help very much. Jordan is a poor country, which even struggles to provide adequate supply of water for its citizens. "The US-led war in Iraq in 2003 dealt an economic blow to Jordan, which was dependent on Iraq for discounted oil (worth $300-$600 million a year)". [1] Lebanon has a weak economy and it is also politically instable. Kuwait is still reeling from the losses of the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm). I could go on and on.
Indeed Matt G. the options are very few if there are any at all.
Like the mice from the English kiddies novel, we know that someone has to take a risk; someone has to bell the cat. "Who will bell the cat?" That is the question.
[1] http://www.travelblog.org/World/jo-econ.html
Post a Comment