[Gort]

Note: use this login if you do not have one already:

weevil45
weevil

Genocide in Darfur; Sudan
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[sweetums]

The US is not that interested, because like Rwanda, there is no oil or other financial concern Edit: in it for us.
What is the rest of the world's excuse?
If the UN is able to document it, why doesn't it do something about it besides empty talk?
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[Gort]

Dude:

You got anything else brilliant to say? Nice work.

The US has actually made efforts in the United Nations. Sudan IS rich in oil, but their primary customers are China and Russia, and both those countries have voted NO to sanctions put forth for approval in the UN.

Are you an American citizen? If so then write your Congressman/woman. I've written mine.

-t
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[sweetums]

Like that will make a difference. If China and Russa have a controlling say in the region, we're NOT gonna make any waves, no matter how many senators whine about their constituents writing. The oil is not such that it has an impact on us. It's China and Russia's oil reserves... The UN can't do a hell of a lot either against 2 of the big 5...just like we can't. We can nicely suggest, but we can't push on this. It's a reality, all bleeding heart indignation aside.
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[Ragnarok]

This isn't new. It happened in Ruanda. What did we do (as countries) then? Nothing. I don't think this time will be different.
_________________
"Ever forward, my darling wind." -Master Yuppa
Seigetsu

[Gort]

On a more productive, less cynical note:

Sudan Relief Effort
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[sweetums]

Yeah, if you can't get the rightous uproar you expected with a tragedy link, and no one wants to write their Congressman, let's switch gears and beg for donations to your cause...
How about these genocides that DON'T have a bunch of celebrities and relief auctions?
Bosnia-Herzegovina - a genocide against Bosnia's Muslim population, and a gendercide against Muslim men in particular;
Columbia - "Colombians commit a quarter of all the murders taking place in the American continent as a whole." "Today Colombia has the highest homicide rate in the world, surpassed only in exceptional circumstances, such as the mass bloodletting in Rwanda in 1994.
Kashmir - "Human Rights Watch is not aware of a single prosecution in a case of the torture or summary execution of a detainee in the ten years since the conflict began."

Pick your genocide. There's a wide enough variety for everyone...but only those endorsed by famous people get big auctions and telethons. The rest just struggle along...
Amazing how the US is supposed to be the bad guy all the time, until someone wants money or military assistance. Then everyone holds their hands out...
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[Gort]

Correct me if I am wrong; I mean no offense, but you seem apathetic.

If I recall a coalition of Armies, the US included, went into Bosnia and made sincere efforts to bring peace and stability to the area, and the gist of that was based on human rights; the world was finally exposed to the horrors there through exposure. Last I looked the international efforts to bring peace were reasonably successful.

As for genocide what does that have to do with Columbia? Sounds like an issue within Columbia, unless you have some other evidence from there that points to actual genocide. Now think hard about it and do some serious research before answering the question, which I shall gain ask: as for genocide what does that have to do with Columbia?

And what level of effort or lack therein from past events can you or I be so sure of? Perhaps inaction from past events has spurned the action of the present. It looks like some parts of the world might be trying to do something about it. Why not you? Why not me? Aren't you at least motivated to try and do something instead of resign to apathy?
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Impaler]

While I'm not apathetic, I'm an Isolationist on this one. (i'll try to keep the isms to a minimum..ism)

America: Puritanical (maybe even dogmatic) Idealism

Most of the Rest of the World: Old-School Tribalism

The two simply don't mix. As Americans, we tend to see politics in terms of black and white (red and blue...), good and evil, victim and victimizer. We want to make everyone the good guy, so we go and knock out despots and communists and terrorists.

The rest of the world is stuck about 3 centuries behind America, Europe and half of Asia. They see other nations in terms of power and standing. There's an Arab philosopher named Khaldir who perfectly outlines the cyclical power struggle that's dominated the Middle East and Africa for the last millennium or so. He says something like "the Shah (dominant tribe) always falls, because it's the sole occupation of the smaller tribes to become the next Shah." I'm paraphrasing here, mostly because I can't find a decent page on the internet about him, but the point still rings true. Genocide (democide, more accurately), then, becomes a much more deeply rooted problem than simple greed. If you tip power too far to one tribe, they'll abuse it. Take the power away from that group, and the opposing side will abuse that opportunity.

This becomes apparent when you compare Afghanistan and Iraq. The
Afghani Shi'a Taliban constantly warred with the Sunni underdog (the Sunnis made up the native rebel forces during the U.S. invasion). In Iraq, the Shi'a had no voice, simply because the Sunnis were in power. When a big country or organization comes in and supplies one side with superior technology, it has disastrous results (Sandinistas, Iran-contra, Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan, etc.).

Genocide sucks, I know, it's terrible. I just don't think America has the foreign finesse right now to handle this sort of thing, and I'm not even sure that we should.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Ragnarok]

I agree with Impaler.

The US see the world in black and white and that's dangerous. Sometimes leads to great efforts in the name of human rights, but the results aren't often what they expected.
Many countries have the idea that USA is the world police. The main problem is what happens afterwards. Imagine the NATO sends a peace force to Sudan and stops the genocide, what do you do now? If you leave the situation will return to its previous status, if you stay people will ask for their freedom.
Politics always involve interests also that you can't ignore, economic mostly (we all want to have something to eat) and international politics are really complex.

On another topic, you just can't impose your way of living. In this world there are people that prefer dictatorship to democracy and they aren't always the ones with power. Other people like to live in the jungle without medical insurance. I think we should show them the benefits of our way of living, but going any further is a bad idea imho.

About Sudan, I feel apathetic sometimes. But I feel apathetic about Africa as a whole. Look at their recent history and it's full of genocide, civil wars and massacres. But it's always been like that. A relative of mine is a missionary in Africa and young men steal cows from the neighbouring villages to marry women, and sometimes they die. The dynamic has always been the same, but now they have modern weapons.
I don't know what to do, I don't know if money will solve the problem and I recognize that I don't have the valor to go down there and help out.

I ramble... I should be studying for tomorrow's exam. Sorry
_________________
"Ever forward, my darling wind." -Master Yuppa
Seigetsu

[Gort]

Very interesting points all around, although I do not agree that America sees thing entirely as black and white; perhaps there's a tendacy, but the nature of global politics and the US presence in regards to those politics is complex. To me the concept of black and white denotes shortsightedness (although you likely don't mean it that way), and given just how small our world has gotten to be, it wouldn't be wise to be too imposing of our view. I do not believe there's a black and white sightedness, imo, and

Although I believe the concept of "Old World Tribalism" might have some validity, I believe it's a bit generalized. It could easily be characterized through localization (highly concentrated in certains parts of the world).

As for the impression of the US being labeled World Police, it is my opinion that view is skewed by the impressions we receive from the media; just about every "world policing" effort (but not all) are usually a result of coalitions brought together under the UN, as was the case of Bosnia. America receives a lot of publicity; we're the superpower, so anything we do will always be scutinized.

I don't see NATO going to Sudan; however, I do see global action under the guise of the UN. Even then it's tricky. If you look back at the calls for sanctions against Sudan, it's China and Russia leading the way in the "no" votes. America need Russia in some ways (think Iran), and China is useful when dealing with the Gargoyle of North Korea. It's all a big chess match, I am afraid.

So what to do? I will admit that it's hard to be focused on a solution; we all have our problems, but even the slightest consideration can perhaps bring peace of mind. I don't mean some token gift of a few dollars, but maybe making and taking some broader steps would help. Or we could just embrace complacency. When's the mothership gonna get here?

--Edit--

Impaler - you mentioned dogmatic; if you're meaning is rooted in the religious or faith based definitions of the word, then I will have to disagree with you. Granted the leaders of America are men and women of moral value (well most anyway, I believe), but at the same time I will give most of them credit for upholding the Constitutional intentions of our founding fathers, and there are too many on the side of true liberty that would disallow America from every leaning too far in that direction. I won't stand for it, and there are many, many more that will not either. In fairness I have no problem with the President being a person of faith, and I certainly respect his (or "hers" as the case may be before this decade is over) belief, as long as it's kept out of my life and others.
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Impaler]

I realize I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, and I apologize.

I can't help but shake the opinion that the United Nations is entirely irrelevant to the state of global affairs. The invasion of Iraq, the rejection of the Kyoto treaty, the failure of some key countries to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, these are all immensely important subjects in which the U.N. has been completely ineffectual.

Military coalitions (NATO or not) are all largely United States funded, so it's not so hard to see America as the worldwide sheriff. We've got the best-funded, best-trained military on Earth. We've got the biggest economy (double that of #2 Japan). If you look carefully at the pictures of Iraqi insurgents, you'll see Coca Cola t-shirts. The bottom line? We're a hegemon, and the U.N. is our puppet.

Editaddendumpostscriptus:

I meant dogmatic in the sense that many Americans have an unshakeable moral compass that points towards "helping" the world. This direction isn't necessarily built on rationale or logic, or even religious conventions. We just want everyone to be as happy as we are.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Giant Hamster]

Heal the world, make it a better place. For you and for me and the entire human race.

*moonwalk*