Politics, News & Issues >
War & Peace
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the UN intervene by force in Darfur?
Results so far:
| Yes | 63% | 121 votes | Total: 192 votes | |
| No | 37% | 71 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShould the UN intervene by force in Darfur? In order to answer this question, all they need to do is look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as written by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1949. This declaration outlines everything that UN stands for and their mission as an international community. Articles one and three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are most relevant to the situation in Darfur.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
What equal rights do the people of Sudan have? The Janjaweed has power, while the civilians of Darfur have none. The Janjaweed receives money and weapons from Sudan's president Omar Al-Bashir (SaveDarfur). The refugees in need of protection do not. Sudanese women live in fear of rape. Are these people treated with respect? No! Their dignity has been taken away from them. The Janjaweed is ripping away the innocence of an entire country. In order to keep the spirit of brotherhood that the UN declared it would provide, the Janjaweed must be stopped.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
This idea dates back to Thomas Paine when he wrote The Rights of Man, and while it is a nice idea, it has yet to happen. The right to life? The Janjaweed has already claimed more than 400,000 lives (SaveDarfur). Who was there to protect the lives of those people? Certainly not the UN. Liberty? About 2.3 million people of Darfur have been forced from their homes and now live in refugee camps (SaveDarfur). I suppose they can leave if they choose. It's not a prison. But do they have a choice? What will happen to them if they leave those camps. They don't have a chance at survival if they come face to face with the Janjaweed. That isn't a life of liberty. Security of a person? I can't even say that I believe that the people in the camp are really secure. Terrorists don't care about UN guards posted outside these camps. The UN currently has 22,500 peacekeeping troops in Darfur (SaveDarfur). Their job is to protect the Sudanese people in case of an attack, and under no circumstances can they be the aggressors. They can only help when under attack. Does the UN really think this will stop the terrorists? They need to be stopped before an attack. The people of Darfur have no guarantee of security.
If the UN refuses to use force on the Janjaweed, they will be going against what they stand for. Though the UN is hesitant to declare this situation in Sudan genocide, President Bush and other members of the United States government have. This is the first time that that the United States government has made such a declaration while the genocide is still taking place (SaveDarfur).
Current attempts to end the genocide in Sudan are not enough. UN troops do not have the authority to stop attacks before they start. America's ban on trade with the Sudanese government is a step in the right direction, but there are loopholes. American companies, sometimes without realizing, have invested in Chinese corporations which have provided Sudan with money and weapons. Some groups are trying to make this issue known, but the campaign is not widespread enough to make a difference. While cutting the financial strings of these terrorists does help, it doesn't end the problem. These people are violent, and they must be stopped before they wipe out the population of Darfur. Yes, using force on the Janjaweed is violent. But sometimes violence must be fought with violence. These terrorists cannot go unpunished.
Works Cited
General Assembly of the United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
United Nations. December 10, 1949. .
"Learn: The Genocide in Darfur Briefing Paper." Save Darfur. June 2007. eLeap
eLearning Management System. July 4, 2007.
.
Learn more about this author, Genenda Milloy.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Heavens No:
Its puzzling how often this question comes up. Mostly because of those who ask. It's the same folks who say we should get out of Iraq. True. But Mr. Hussein killed as many innocent people as the government-supported militia has in Darfur.
Get out of Iraq, then up the road to Darfur? Anti-war, warmongers.
On Darfur:
The situation in Darfur is horrendous. It's a conflict between wealthier tribe farmers and poorer farmers who once had agreed upon sharing arid land in dry seasons.
However, due to droughts a power struggle emerged between the two classes. The government armed the poorer tribes and formed a militia called the Janjawiid. This was the counter-insurgency to the more prospering farmer's insurgency. The Janjawiid are known to be the more brutal of the two but the violence from the insurgency is also grotesque. Whose side is to be taken? Or are we in the middle of a crossfire? Again.
In 2004 the chair of the African Union Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo went before the UN to speak of the situation in Darfur. He said, " Before we can say that this is genocide we need to consider a definite decision and plan and program of a government to wipe out a particular group of people, then we will be talking about genocide. What we know is not that. It amounts to violence."
Not out of selfishness but self-preservation, America should stop stampeding in the world's affairs to the degree of soft Empire.
On the UN:
In 1945 A terribly beauty was born called the United Nations. It derived and took the place of the League of Nations, which was dismantled in the 1920's. Both have been colossal failures, only one has taken more time to realize it and dismantle. Much like the League of Nations, the UN is supposed to be a police force for the world. Great idea. If only it could first learn to police itself.
Kofi Annan's 2nd home is up to its eyeballs in scandals. The worst in the international organization's history. Saddam defrauded the oil-for-food program of $21 billion that was on route to humanitarian aid. You want human Rights abuses? Libya, were acts of terrorism killed more Americans then in Iraq-pre invasion, was just elected to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Reagans Libya...
This compost heap of human rights violators reeks more than the sulfur stench our Latin friend Chavez was complaining of in his "El Diablo" speech. Who lets these casts of characters out of the asylum, gives them a visa to the country and then a podium?
Why has the United States lost its marbles?
The U.N. or diablo's den, would be a great source of comic relief were it not such a creepy drift to one-world government. This hodge-podge is over-run with corrupt-crazed dictators. How will they intervene? Much like Somalia, Rwanda, Cuba or the Nigerian genocide of 1966? Are we suggesting the heads-of-State in blood soaked Peninsulas, intervene in blood soaked Peninsulas, to stop the blood soaking in Peninsulas?
The UN will enact resolutions, we will enforce them, do all the fighting, then try to find a way of the mess we got into.
Is it an immoral philosophy to claim that American kids should not fight other countries wars, and their grandkids should not pay other countries bills?
Which raises a bigger point.
Allies, are only allies, when they are allies. Those who stand with us are friends, those who do not, are not. Why pay all these bills for countries whom two-quarters of the time vote against us in the UN? Being anti-American is amusing, over there. Being a foreign anti-American in America while getting benefits from Americans is mystifying. The United States government allowing it all is bizarre. It is dragging us clear thinkers over to the conspiracy nut-balls damp basement kicking and screaming.
Nations whose currency is worth more than our own should be handed over the burden of defending their own. America should immediately cease allowing the rich nations in Europe and elsewhere to hitchhike on-board our military express.
China's economy is growing at 10% a year, ours at 1%, why not hand over defense of the world to crouching tiger? Tell Beijing it's the price of a preposterous trade policy.
As for the UN,
Let the building which houses this circus tumble in the River to the East. Let us erect an epitaph in its place as a warning to future public enemies, " A strange hidden agenda lie here". Let the wild entrepreneurs of anti-Americanism show up for work to see it. Let no place be found for them. Let them find their best way home.
Then, let freedom ring.
Learn more about this author, Nick Matrone.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War & Peace
- Should Tony Blair be the lead Mideast envoy in upcoming peace talks in Egypt?
- Is it possible to control international arms trading?
- Should America or other powers charge for liberating the oppressed in other countries?
- Will President Obama's U.N. address have any effect on Iran's and North Korea's pursuit of nucler weapons?
- Does the US need more spies to help inform and protect our country?
- Should the US government continue to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Emergency Supplemental legislation instead of through the Pentagon's base budget?
