The politics of military intervention have taken different turns over the past months. The spring revolts in the Middle East coupled with the death of Osama bin Laden have led the international community to question the use of armed forces. The Sudan crisis, which has been obviously forgotten in the midst of current events, challenges both advocates of intervention in the Darfur genocide and supporters of diplomatic measures in Southern Sudan independence peace talks. On the one hand, the Khartoum government has oppressed and slaughtered more than three hundred thousand innocent civilians in the western region of Darfur in an attempt to impose Sharia law. Civil right defenders accurately underscore these crimes against humanity and plead for international intervention with college banners such as "Save Darfur." On the other hand, United Nation decedents have vouched for more diplomatic sanctions such as the imposition of peacekeeping forces first under the leadership of the African Union and later with the presence of the Blue Beret. But should the United States and its allies have taken a harder stance in these atrocities?
At a first glance the answer seems self-evident. Indeed, the lack of engagement in Darfur and the prioritization of other political agendas, such as the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, seem unjust and contradict the Declaration of Human Rights, which upholds the individual when confronted to an oppressive state. Furthermore, self-interests have undeniably influenced the outcomes in Darfur as countries such as France and China have invested interests in Sudanese oil. So, are these diplomatic measures props set up to protect the politics of our western nations or are these real efforts to bring peace to a twenty-two year conflict?
Despite the horror in Darfur, one must take into consideration the geopolitical context. This might seem like a harsh response but the underlying conflict remains the North-South civil war, which has resulted in the death of more than two million people and the displacement of another four million. These acts of violence do not forgive the massacres committed by the Janjaweed militias; however, they explain in part the reasons behind the promotion of peace talks rather than further violence. Therefore, the real question is whether the crucial international relations in Sudan ought to outweigh the crimes against humanity perpetrated in Darfur and, more recently, in the Nuba mountains.
The noble choice of diplomacy over invasion has so far resulted in positive outcomes. The Bush administration is proud to have helped achieve the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which brought the longest-running African civil war to an end. The peace treaty included the promise of six years of autonomy, followed by the possibility of a referendum on independence. Last January, Southern Sudanese and the world rejoiced as voters cast their ballots without fear and a nearly unanimous majority voted in favor for complete independence. Since the results, tensions have emerged, such as the division of oil revenues and the region of Abyei, but thanks to well-preserved international relations these disputes are being resolved.
Today, the Republic of Southern Sudan has become the 196th country in the world. Yet, this does not mean everything is over; to the contrary, this is only the beginning for a country plagued with deep-rooted conflicts. However, the accomplishments in Sudan demonstrate that relative peace is possible through effective diplomatic pressure rather than irrational military intervention. Though calamity often provokes the emotions to a retaliatory response, the many tragedies of the world are more effectually met by a proactive, calculated peace-seeking process.
Roger Mitchell
2 Corinthians 5: 20
I honestly had no idea where you were going with this until the last paragraph. The first paragraph should be an introduction that effectively tells the reader what it is you're going to be talking about in the rest of the essay. Your first paragraph starts off as an introduction, but seems to get somewhat sidetracked in the middle, only to get back to the introduction at the end.
ReplyDeleteA decedent is a dead person. I was unaware that United Nation dead people were so politically active. While I'm assuming you meant "dissidents", that still doesn't sound right in the sentence you used.
As for your point, your use of language, specifically that you refer to wars in this context as being irrational by nature, shows that you were likely already convinced that military intervention was a suboptimal solution before the presented evidence entered in to your calculations. If that is the case, I'd be far more interested to know what made you originally come to that conclusion rather than what evidence you use to justify it. As it is, while I agree that military intervention is suboptimal, I do not agree with how you arrived at this conclusion.
To me, this is not a matter of efficacy. This is a matter of sovereignty. Nations are sovereign within their own borders, and for one nation to intervene in another's affairs through force of arms is a breach of that sovereignty. While it may be our view that a given nation's policies are oppressive or otherwise morally objectionable, it is not our place as a nation to force that view on another sovereign nation. If the citizenry of that nation seek removal of the oppressing forces, it is for them to do so, not us. I believe that the only acceptable forum for a nation to express its views of another's internal policies is through diplomatic channels.
I appreciate your comments and your positive criticism. I disagree with you on the clarity of the post though, I sought to present a complicated subject to a broad audience in a reasonably condensed amount of words. You will forgive my grammatical and spelling errors, I am originally French not American. I recognize my mistakes though and admit that the conclusion is somewhat sidetracked in comparison to the beginning; however, in doing so my intention was to broaden the topic to the current events at the time (the independence of Souther Sudan).
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your further arguments, my initial position was in fact in favor of military intervention mainly because I believed that it was hypocritical to invade oil filled nations such as Iraq while racial genocide was occurring in places like the Darfur. It is my research and reflexion that brought to my conclusions.
I do agree with you on this importance of state sovereignty, I develop this idea considerably in my paper. However, in your argument you forget to lay out the crucial existence of the Declaration of Human Rights, which upholds the individual when confronted to an oppressive state. The dilemma is whether or not the international community is ready to challenge the sovereignty of a nation in the name of human rights. Do not get me wrong, I maintain that the United States government did well to hold back in the Sudan during this horrific conflict. Nevertheless, I deem that your opinion reflects impartiality and attachment to national affairs rather than an open-mindness towards the needs of minorities than have similar and more often greater problems than our own.
Thanks for your contribution to the blog, you have some very constructive eye-openning ideas. If you are interested in a more structured response to the issue of military intervention in the Sudan you are welcome to check out my paper at: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B77Q7zDoyz3cNDk1NDlhMjAtMmJiMC00ZWJiLWJjZGEtNDZjMDlhNzZmNmVl&hl=en_US