Why doesn't the u.s. take action in Darfur?

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Taking into account that the u.s. considers darfur to be genocide, why hasn't anything substantial been done? A professor being interviewed on the news suggested it was because they're african, black, muslim, and resource poor, and therefore have no strategic importance. It's one thing to say that it is not genocide and therefore does no call for military action, at least in the form of peacekeepers, but the u.s. has publicly stated that genocide is occuring. If the term "never again" is to have any meaning whatsoever, doesn't Darfur require action?
 
Why does everybody ask this question only about the US? What are other countries doing about it? What did they do about Rwanda? The US is actually near the forefront of getting something done in Darfur when compared to some other counrties that like to see themselves as UN peacekeeping members. Liek it or not we are fighting a war and that war is eating up costs, supplies and just about everything else...the US can't handle all the world's problems and it shouldn't be the only country that is asked to step up over and over again. Maybe that professor is part right, but the US isn't failing the people involved in Darfur, the world is.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Why does everybody ask this question only about the US? What are other countries doing about it? What did they do about Rwanda? The US is actually near the forefront of getting something done in Darfur when compared to some other counrties that like to see themselves as UN peacekeeping members. Liek it or not we are fighting a war and that war is eating up costs, supplies and just about everything else...the US can't handle all the world's problems and it shouldn't be the only country that is asked to step up over and over again. Maybe that professor is part right, but the US isn't failing the people involved in Darfur, the world is.[/quote]

Duo, my question was based on the fact that we have deemed it genocide, therefore that usually carries an obligation to act. That was the reason clinton never declared rwanda genocide, he did not want to be forced to act. Any country that declares this situation genocide, and does not act, belongs in my question as well. The world is failing them, but they have stopped short of deeming it genocide. Personally I'm not sure whether I'd consider it genocide either, but I think action should be taken. Also, the u.s. is not the only country asked to step up. Also, if you look at our peacekeeping missions, we do extremely poorly compared to many other nations.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Because we'd be acting irresponsible in a unilateral non-UN approved action.[/quote]

Is that ... sarcasm?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Why does everybody ask this question only about the US? What are other countries doing about it? What did they do about Rwanda? The US is actually near the forefront of getting something done in Darfur when compared to some other counrties that like to see themselves as UN peacekeeping members. Liek it or not we are fighting a war and that war is eating up costs, supplies and just about everything else...the US can't handle all the world's problems and it shouldn't be the only country that is asked to step up over and over again. Maybe that professor is part right, but the US isn't failing the people involved in Darfur, the world is.[/quote]

Duo, my question was based on the fact that we have deemed it genocide, therefore that usually carries an obligation to act. That was the reason clinton never declared rwanda genocide, he did not want to be forced to act. Any country that declares this situation genocide, and does not act, belongs in my question as well. The world is failing them, but they have stopped short of deeming it genocide. Personally I'm not sure whether I'd consider it genocide either, but I think action should be taken. Also, the u.s. is not the only country asked to step up. Also, if you look at our peacekeeping missions, we do extremely poorly compared to many other nations.[/quote]

For starters "we" haven't necessarily decalred it offically genocide...The house did and they have a say, but the house doesn't speak for the whole government. The UN even has an offical definition of genocide and even if the whole governemnt officially declared it so doesn't mean we can just waltz in there and do as we please. As a governemnt we are trying to place sanctions, get war criminals tried, etc in cooperation with other countries. Yesterday the UN Secretary General Called the situation appaling and terrible yet the UN hasn't done a whole of alot exactly.

And we are the country being blamed for not stepping up constantly. Everytime I hear somebody talk about the two phrases US and not doing enough are usually included. I don't hear people saying, "Hey the Europeon Unioin isn't doing enough to help the situation in Darfur." UN officials said a couple weeks ago that we are one of 4 wealthy nations largely living up to our pledge in humanitarian aid compared to 20 other wealthy nation across Europe and Asia that have fallen short. You say we aren't singled out but why aren't you talking about the other 20 nations not taking action or even enough aid?

In the end, we probably should do more, but I'm sick and tired of people singiling the US (especially when we are at least doing something) out of all the other nations just sitting on their hands. Also our peacekeeping and humanitarian are not much worse than some of UN missions that have been attempted without our partciapation, some fiascos such as Bosnia and Rwanda should be proof enough of that.
 
I'm referring to the use of peacekeepers, not necessarily if the attempt was succesful. In this case Nigeria is the largest country with peacekeepers in sudan, with about 2000. We could send a very large peacekeeping force in, larger and more effective than what is there. The problem is we participate in very few peacekeeping missions relative to the rest of the world.

As for genocide, powell did declare that was taking place in Darfur.

And in Rwanda, while as much to blame as anyone, france, along with senegal, did eventually send troops in that helped end it.

As for what we're doing, we are trying to set up trials for war criminals instead of using the international court, which is designed for these situations and wouldn't need the funds to be set up. This is due more to our opposition of the court more than anything else.

Sanctions aren't very effective when you are trying to stop people from being killed right now.

But the u.n. would have to act if it was declared a genocide, their investigation decided it was a horrible situation, but not quite genocide. If the u.s had the same standard they would find themselves required to act, due to their belief that it's genocide.

Again, I'm not singling out any nation that hasn't declared it to be a genocide. What is hard to understand there? Yes, others should act, but declaring something genocide indicates urgent need for action. Also though, nations should help relative to their military and economic strength. Countries, such as canada (which contributes more peacekeeping troops than any other nation) and denmark, contribute more troops for peacekeeping than the u.s. Economically the u.s. contributes more than anyone else (25%), but drops when the size of our economy is considered

The next highest contributors to U.N. peacekeeping are Japan (15.5 percent), Germany (9 percent), France (7.9 percent), the United Kingdom (6.6 percent), and the Russian Federation (5.5 percent).
Click to expand...
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0597/ijpe/pj2peace.htm

All of which contribute a larger amount when the size of their economies are considered.

Ya I know I'm jumping all over the place, but I hate having to quote, respond, repeat.
 
Well I guess what I don't get is that because our house of representivies are the only ones willing to declare it genocide (which was nearly a year ago if I recall) we seem to be called out and I don't mean by you necessarily alonzo, but by a number of other people in the press, in this nation, and around the world. My rant is more directed at the people saying we aren't doing enough rather than what you are saying. In way I agree with you and though were are doing a little someting we should do more over the coming months.

But because the other nations and the UN play word games they somehow seem exempt from some of the criticism, even though nations like Germany, Japan, etc. have done little to nothing. That's the part I don't get I suppose...
 
We're not taking any military action because...

1. the situation is not deemed to be in our "national interest." (although there is actually oil in Sudan)
2. our military already has its hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. we would have to defy the U.N. and get all sorts of criticism for that again because the Security Council will not vote sanctions, much less use of military force, in the Darfur situation. Russia and especially China will veto any measures other than passive resolutions at best.

We are trying to get African Union troops in there to do peacekeeping work, but these troops are slow to respond, poorly trained and equipped, and currently too few in number. Right now this solution is just not working and corrupt nations like China are preventing any U.N. action. A sad state of affairs indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top