Quote:
Originally Posted by donsutherland1  PeteEU,
Genocide is an extraordinary human-engineered catastrophe. It is unusual, infrequent, and of a magnitude that is far beyond the scale of most of the atrocities one witnesses in conflict--civil and international. Most civil wars, even with their atrocities and war crimes, do not constitute genocide. |
Exactly, and thats why I say Darfur is not genocide but a defacto civil war where civilians of a certain race/religion or whatever is targeted. The number of deaths are minimal compared to previous genocides and the number of displaced is frankly not that many in the grand scale of things. More people are displaced in and outside of Iraq for example.
Quote:
|
In Iraq, the Sunni-Shia civil violence does not rise to a genocide. Although there has been an effort to "cleanse" neighborhoods, the effort does not amount to a deliberate pursuit of the partial or whole extermination of a people.
|
Well I can agree in part as I personally dont see the Iraqi situation as "genocide", but the similarites to what many Americans think is happening in Darfur, and constituates genocide.. are frankly striking. A group of people is being targeted by another group of people and driven from thier homes, women raped as punishment and people executed. This is Iraq and Darfur, so why does America call Darfur "genocide" but not Iraq? Is it the number of dead thats the difference? The UN (or others) estimates a number that the US accepts whole hearted but when the UN (and same others) estimate the number of deaths in Iraq, the the US disagrees...
Quote:
|
Ideally, the United Nations Security Council should be able to rely upon contributions from member states to intervene to thwart genocide. Yet, bureaucratic inertia, emphasis on differences in national interests, and even bias inhibit the effective functioning of that important international organ. The General Assembly is in even worse shape.
|
The bureaucratic inertia as you call it, is about 0.1% of the reason of the inactivity of the UN as an organisation. The whole fault lies with the 5 members of the UNSC who have veto power. Each action has to fit into their global political view or have to be convinced of its in thier interest (or be bribed), regardless of how pressing an issue is. On top of that the UN has to rely on member nations dontations of troops and material to such opperations, so even if the UN wanted to go over the head of member nations to prevent genocide or whatever, then they could not because they dont have a standing military force. On top of that the UN charter states that it is to prevent things by non violence basicly, which direct intervention with military forces is exactly the opposite. The american public have to learn and accept that the UN was never meant to be the "global police force", but I am guessing with the present right wing anti UN faction providing false and missleading information time and time agian in US media, that this will not happen anytime soon. Just look at the so called oil for food scandal, how the right wing anti un faction managed in the US media to divert attention away from the USs own (big) role in the scandal, and place all blame at the feet of the UN and France.. their 2 favoruite targets.
If you want the UN or another organisation to act as the worlds police force, then you need to give that organisation the means to do so, but the US and anyone else with half a brain would never ever do that, as it could backfire right back in their face at some point.
Quote:
In the end, if one argues, as is stated in the subject heading of this post, "I really don't care about Darfur," and also expresses opposition to any kind of intervention to thwart genocide, then one's view translates into "I don't care about the Jewish people in Nazi Germany" or "I don't care about the Cambodians at the hands of the Khmer Rouge," etc. That's a severe position to take.
Would those taking such positions really have been willing to allow Hitler a free hand to carry out his Final Solution?
|
First off the final solution was put in place after the war had started, and the war was in no way to prevent genocide or save the Jews. In fact most people of the time did not know about what was happening to the jews and frankly could have cared less, as many had the same "issues" with the jews as Hitler had, and I fully know that the US has spent 50 years trying to convince it self that it was the "jews friend" but facts speak for themselvs. When US states (and European states) had eugenics laws in place before Hilter ever came to power and actively prevented immigration from areas with high jewish populations, well .. facts speak for themselvs.
As for the cambodian issue. The geopolitical situation when it happened prevented any intervention pure and simple. The US would never go in after its bitch slapping in Vietnam, and the rest of the major powers could frankly care less about a backwater nation like Cambodia. In the end it was Vietnam, the "enemy" of the west that finaly got rid of the murders and I rarely see "thank you" being said by the west for this action. But I still am not convinced that it was a genocide as per the definition, after all it was cambodians targeting cambodians, not based on religion, sex, or ethnicity, but on randomess combined with education.
Quote:
|
Quite frankly, I highly doubt it. For all the arguments made against intervention in cases of genocide, I find it difficult to believe that more than a handful of people, if they had the authority to make a difference, would remain unyielding in the face of imminent deliberate efforts by an armed group or revolutionary movement to initiate a widespread bloodbath aimed at trying to exterminate a people.
|
There is a difference between saying that you want to do something about it, and what is practically possible, economical, politically and militarily. I doubt most people would disagree in stopping the mass murder and rape of people, but when you ask them to contribute with troops, material and money, then the tone changes. Its a bit like being for a halfway house for battered criminal teenage girls, but not wanting it next door. No one wants their sons and daughters to fight in a desert thousands of miles from home, in a conflict they have no hope in winning as long as all sides dont agree with a peace treaty. That is one of the main reasons the world did not go into Bosnia in force for example, but waited till a ceasefire and peace negotiations were started. That is also why we did not send in troops to Kosovo before the Serbs agreed to pull out. Yes I know thats not the popular view of history that many Americans are use too, but it is in fact the historical facts.
Quote:
|
Of course, human nature being what it is and humanity's tendency to forget the past, perhaps I am overly optimistic in expecting that people will truly remember genocide's horrors and retain the determination to oppose it. If so, genocide will more than likely resurface again in the future. For now, though, I'll hold to my more optimistic position that enough people will care enough to reduce future prospects of genocide.
|
There is nothing wrong in being optimistic, but I am a realist more than an optimist and I just dont see the political will to go into Darfur, not even from the "pro attack Sudan" people in the US. When it comes down to crunch time people will back away untill its unavoidable.