I really dont care about Darfur - Page 4

PeteEU · 11-20-07, 07:54 AM

I care about Darfur, but I am also a realist, and understand there aint much we can do about it in the present political climate. Plus the logistical nightmare of the area adds to the reluctance in the west (among miliatry leaders especially).

As for genocide. Again the present political climate comes into the picture.

The definition is (as posted)

Quote:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Is that happening in Darfur? Yes it is, but it is also happening in other countries/areas but they are not called genocides are they now? No they are called civil wars, insurgency or something different, and often because the west has a vested interest in the outcome or in one or the other side of the conflict. After all smacking on the "genocide" label in say Iraq would be bad politically, but each of the above definitions can easily be convereted to the Iraqi situation. If you dont belive me, then lets take a look.. remember to be called a genocide you need all or in part of the definitions to be forfilled.

Quote:

(a) Killing members of the group;

Cant deny that is not happening. Sunni killing Shia, and visa versa.

Quote:

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Yep cant deny that either. The attacks cause both bodily and mental harm to Sunnies or Shias.

Quote:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Bombing market places, driving out people of areas based on religion and so on. Killing off or threatning proffessionals based on what religion you are.. yes all happening in Iraq.

Quote:

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

A bit iffy I admit, but one could say killing off the men or women does prevent births. Probally the only one not fitting 100%.

Quote:

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Yep the huge amounts of rapes in Iraq is evident of this. If a Sunni woman is raped by a Shia man, and has a child, then per tradition and Iraqi law, that child is Shia and the woman has in principle no rights over said child.

So at least 4 out of 5 have been forfilled in Iraq, does that mean its a genocide?

But back to Africa, it has been plauged by "genocides" (as per the above definition) since the dawn of time. If it was not countries then it was tribes going at each other. Then again the same thing was happening in Europe, Asia and other parts of the planet, but we evolved so to say. Even during this century there has been many "genocides" in Africa.. the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s were plauged with them.

In fact there have been more "genocides" in Africa than anywhere else if you look at the history.. but we did not call them genocides, but civil wars (often a proxy battle between the west and the USSR), but every single of the above mentioned definitions were in place in each civil war, war between nations or internal unrest, groups targeting other groups.

Who is too blame? The Africans, of course, but also the west. We (as in the west) butted our ugly colonial heads into the frame, often preventing the continents own natural evolutuon and when we finaly left Africa, we left a continent not able to support the basic prinicples of society. The population at large was lacking education and skills, and there was next to no educated professionels to take over the workings of goverment (a basic of society) from thier colonial masters.

On top of the above we have old tribal issues plus the mixing of various "new" religions that have basicly added to the problem. Uneducated masses are easy to "convert" as we have seen through history and religion has been the biggest preventer of progress in society through out history. Also societies rooted in tribal loyalites and tradition, such as much of Africa is, have often been held back because of these loyalties and traditions.. again look at history.

donsutherland1 · 11-20-07, 09:45 AM

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Indeed, even as he opposed additional assistance to Cambodia in 1975, U.S. Senator Jacob Javits finally cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of a compromise solution (which failed later on in the whole Congress). In stepping away from his formerly-held position for a complete cut-off in assistance, Javits explained, "I don't want to be the one who gave Cambodia the last push to a bloodbath." In my opinion, even those who are now stridently arguing against intervention to stop genocide would likely make the same choice, if they were confronted with having to make a decision in similar circumstances.

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.

PeteEU · 11-20-07, 12:04 PM

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.

Tashah · 11-20-07, 12:41 PM

It's no mystery why history repeats itself.

donsutherland1 · 11-20-07, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

It's no mystery why history repeats itself.

Tashah,

While I have no doubt about the good intentions of those who hold dissenting positions on the issue of whether to intervene to thwart genocide, I have to say that you hit the proverbial nail on the head. It is no accident that repetition has been a common theme of the historic experience.

Tashah · 11-21-07, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Tashah,

While I have no doubt about the good intentions of those who hold dissenting positions on the issue of whether to intervene to thwart genocide, I have to say that you hit the proverbial nail on the head. It is no accident that repetition has been a common theme of the historic experience.

Don,

The Iraq argument is even stranger still. If the international community lacks the ethical fortitude to prevent or terminate genocidal activity, it also surrenders the ethical inertia to mitigate conventional military adventures.

Red_Dave · 11-21-07, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

No, the genocides we care about happened outside of Africa. take a look at Africa since WWII. Far more attrocities then just Rwanda.

Also, all of those genocides you listed ended. Because they had a purpose, even if it was horriyfing. Stalin and Pol Pot needed to purge society to recreate it in their revolutions image, Hitler wanted to destroy what he saw as a threat to the purity of his race, the Turks destroyed a threat to the cohesion of their burgeoning nation. Once Ukraine submitted Stalin stopped. Once Hitler killed all the Jews, he would have stopped. Once Turkey established itself as a functioning Western style nation, it stopped. I will admit that Pol Pot may not have stopped without the Vietnamese invasion.

The Africans massacre each other not because authorities have some great and terrible plan for society, but because they lack society. Society is a tool, and it can be used for great evil, but as Africa shows us, Hobbes was right- without government life is nasty, brutish and short.

I have no confidence that Africa will ever develop the kind of society's which possess the kind of authority to stop what has gone on in the past.

Contrary to being brought about by a lack of government the Rwandan genocide was state policy, as is whats happening in sudan. They may well look anarchic but in both cases the perpertrators of the genocide where equiped and funded by the state. So what makes them any different to eastern european genocides?

Civillisations had developed in africa when white europeans where still living in mud huts so its absurd that we,ve been portraying them as backward and uncivilised for hundreds of years.

donsutherland1 · 11-21-07, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

...If the international community lacks the ethical fortitude to prevent or terminate genocidal activity, it also surrenders the ethical inertia to mitigate conventional military adventures.

A most important point.

GySgt · 11-29-07, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

Please. We're not ignoring genocide, we're ignoring genocide outside fo the West. Do you seriously think there could ever be genocide in the West again?

The former Yugoslavia? If we think things to be impossible, we are doomed to make the improbabe probable.

GySgt · 11-29-07, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

...and what I'm saying is that if all you do is treat the symptoms sporadically while leaving alone the underlying root of these attrocities, you're doing nothing but masturbating. and you're doing it with Western lives and Western tax dollars.

This is perfect. Absolutely perfect. Do you realize what you just summed up? You just summed up our foriegn policy throughout the Cold War. And not just ours, but the entire European theater. "Stability at any cost" has ensured the tyrant's survival. As long as the killing remained internal to the European made borders and not supportive to the Soviets, everything was "peaceful." But, as we saw with Saddam Hussein, our policy even extended to those leaders who attacked his neighbors. As long as they retreated back behind his borders...all was "peaceful" and "stable."

Should we be attacking the underlying roots in the Middle East which are the dictators and religious monsters who encourage the terrorist attacks so common in the world today? Shall we address the stongmen in Africa who proclaim soveriegnty simply because they slaughtered their way to the throne and now encourage the very misery that offers terrorist groups a recruiting pool?

You are absolutely correct in insinuating that our present way of conducting business is like running in water. Hitting Afghanistan and taking out "our" former dictator in Iraq was a step in the right direction to re-creating our international outlook on the world's gutter. We've done a poor job in accordance to our standards, but we are only in the beginning. This new policy will continue because it simply has too. Our future enemies will be loosely organized and from these third world decrepit countries.

It is no longer convenient to face a known enemy, point him (them) out to the world, and look away just to comply to some outdated anchient international form of order and law as we wait for the attack we know is coming.