Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Why Not Darfur?

Someone recently asked me, in response to my statement of support for the war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, then "Why not Darfur?" This is of course an example of fallacious thinking, often intended to shut down debate: if one action is not or cannot be taken in all instances, it is not good or right in any instance. Such an argument is plain wrong, and if acted out in practice would give us a world in which good actions are impossible, because all good actions aren't always possible.

However, let me assume good faith on the part of the questioner: Why doesn't America take military action in the Darfur region of Sudan?

The UN conventions on genocide authorize military action against a state when a genocide is underway. It is percisely for this reason that governments go to such linguistic and logical leaps to not declare genocide when one is clearly underway. It is percisely this reason that has caused our own government to tiptoe up to the line--but not quite over--where genocide is declared, and this is an unmitigated tragedy.

It's pure politics why we don't: no international backing, and domestic politics--those who feel no intervention is justified.

Time and again in the 20th century the world has stood by and done little more than talk while the butchers rang up a bloodier and bloodier bill. Cambodia, Rawanda, Iraq...the list goes on.

So in answer to the question of "why not Darfur", I answer "why not indeed?"

Comments

Avatar for Seth Williams

You’re right about that, just like it’s not the neighbors job to pull you out of your burning house. Better wait for the fire department.

Seth Williams on November 30, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

One thing a lot of people who make this argument tend to forget is that while America is the foremost proponent for good and justice in the world, we can’t do it alone.

If the UN weren’t an impotent and corrupt anachronism it might be useful in stopping some of this stuff.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 30, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Avatar for Dave

So in answer to the question of “why not Darfur”, I answer “why not indeed?”

Why not? Because it is not the job of the U.S. Government to improve the lives of Sudanese citizens.

Dave on November 30, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Avatar for GraemeA

The African Union sent soldiers there, I don’t know if they are there in numbers big enough to make a difference but they are there. If I am not mistaken I think Powell did call it a genocide.

Africa is tough, there is a problem in nearly every country that deserves attention. I have read that in some areas of war torn African countries, they are starting to form tribal governments. Maybe they should incorporate some of these tribal leaders into governments rather than military leaders. The tribal governments seemed to get along fine before colonization.

GraemeA on December 1, 2005 at 01:12 am
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] Why Not Darfur? By Seth Williams on December 1, 2005 at 1:42 am [...]

Avatar for Jay Tea

Damn… you’ve made me dig up one of the uglier pieces I’ve ever written. Why not Darfur? Here’s why.

J.

Jay Tea on December 1, 2005 at 04:13 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

I have advocated taking action in Africa since the ‘80s. The time to strike against these terrorist gangs was long ago, and we knew it when it passed. Dept. of State screwed the dog on the whole situation. So lets follow their brilliant leadership in Iraq. Oh. Thats right we did. Remember a happy little burg named Fallujah? Though apparently we can send shiploads of money, which does not appear to be working. Allowing the UN to run operations in Africa has really done the trick, maybe we should let them run everything. The die-off in Darfur has plateaued, the next major problem is going to be farther south and not centralized in Zimbabwe or eastern DRC. Geldof will have another concert, Angelina will cry for the cameras and nothing will be done again. Mary wept.

2Hotel9 on December 1, 2005 at 05:13 am
Avatar for Seth Williams

Mary wept indeed, if we can safely file this away as not a concern because the house burnings, rape, and killing has plateaued.

“Is it bad?”

“Sure, but it’s not getting worse...at least not on the TV it isn’t.”

Sad comentary on the state of human compassion, isn’t it 2H9?

Seth Williams on December 1, 2005 at 06:12 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Indeed. The “plateau” position is the official one put forth by the UN. That den of compassion on Turtle Bay. They have lowered the priority level for Sudan. The government in Khartoum has assured all guilty parties have been punished. Seeing the thousands of unburied dead left to the carrion eaters in the western plains region, the Khartoum government has punished those they feel are guilty. African Union forces have interceded to stop the Sudanese government,in the guise of the Janjaweed and Islamic Brotherhood, from killing more. The UN and EU have thrown roadblocks in their path, and have begun legal proceedings to reduce the numbers and operational scope of AU forces. Again, human compassion, indeed.

2Hotel9 on December 1, 2005 at 09:13 am
Avatar for Chad

I belong to a denomination of christianity that has a long history of pacifism.  Our one denomination has split into three groups (roughly), and our group has really set aside pacifism as a personal decision, rather than an organized one.  We have a relief organization that has sent many supplies to the darfur region.  My Father-in-law pretty much summed it up after one of the reports by the organization at a recent conference.  “Maybe we should send them M-16s and ammo instead of blankets” really struck home with me.  I’m military myself, so I really thought it made sense to give them the means to fight back.

Chad on December 1, 2005 at 01:13 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Chad, in ‘87 I worked in a central African country teaching basic military and counter-insurgency skills. 2 years later international aid agencies convinced them that"International Law” would protect them, they surrendered their ability to defend themselves. They are dead. Every child,woman,man,cow, and dog. Their villages were burned and their wells were poisoned, they were herded into the bush. Women raped, men executed, children marched off into slavery. Of a population of 10,000 in ‘87, not one single member of that tribe can be found. Not 1. My question is, where was the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Why does a redheaded, pale white redneck from south Mississippi care more about blacks in Africa than their own brothers do? There is a stumper for you.

2Hotel9 on December 1, 2005 at 04:12 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.