In early 2003, a conflict broke out between the indigenous tribes of Darfur and the Sudanese government. This conflict, or what has been called genocide, has had an impact around the world. Focusing specifically on the United States and the United Nations, I will address how each has, in surprising ways, dealt with this tragedy.
Our government is notorious for being involved in everything, but take notice of the U.S.’ biggest influence when entering hostile foreign affairs. Do we enter out of the goodness of our hearts, being concerned with epidemics and terrible violence? Absolutely not.
What about spreading our “Christian values” to those less fortunate? Laughable.
Then political interest must be the answer. Again, close, but no cigar.
Economics. Money. Greed.
As many of you probably remember, about two years ago there was a large media clamor for Darfur, and what seemed to be real humanistic concern from nations all over. As a freshman at the time, this was the first I had heard about this conflict. Since then, I have watched and read with interest about what is being done.
What is being done is a lot of nothing. Talk from the U.S. has been fervent. Despite such critically limited action, there has been plenty of talk as to what we should do.
The U.S. has identified this crisis as genocide, and the need for help is obvious and clear. People are still falling victim to unbelievable atrocities; families are being ripped apart. Sex trafficking is no longer a “hush-hush” business.
Astonishing accounts of torture and death have become commonplace for indigenous peoples in Darfur. The violence is widely spread throughout Sudan to a point that the line between indigenous peoples and possible threats has become something commonly overlooked.
So why, with all this talk from the U.S., has nothing been done? A lot of the blame can fall on the shoulders of a busy schedule. While this sounds terribly cynical, it is true. The U.S. economy, instability within our own government and extremely low presidential support make anything overseas, at this point, very unfavorable.
The biggest reason stands clear; we have no gain to make from Darfur. There is no large economic appeal of moving into a country, as we fight a two-front war, and helping to alleviate people who really hold no value in terms of money or politics. There just is not enough immediate value in helping for us to do anything.
This is a particularly sad reality when you think about who “we” is. “We” is the U.S. government. “We” is Big Brother. “We” is known for having 10 sets of eyes on everyone when only five can be afforded.
Constantly, the U.S. enters hostile territory preaching words of good fortune and aid to our brothers. Yet, when the time comes to stand as a beacon, when it really matters and will make a difference in humanity rather than in our wallets, we fall short.
As for the U.N., there is even less hope to be had. Usually this kind of problem is right up its alley, but for now, other issues seem to be more important, or more profitable. In a release by the U.N., describing its take on the problem, it was written that “genocidal intent appears to be missing.”
Apparently mass murder and exploitation of prostitution under a political agenda no longer constitute genocidal activities.
What is a fantastically interesting link is the inactivity of the U.S. as the U.N. does not give support. The last time this disagreement was occurred we enter a war in the Middle East which, in short, has sucked us dry of money and morale.
If the U.S. was able to undermine the opinion of the U.N. after 9/11, then why not now? Now, as masses are being exploited in ways Americans have only read about, we as a government and as a people have not answered the call of those in need.
President Barack Obama is deliberating the 54 billion dollars it would take the station 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. How much of that money could be going to saving lives right now?
With the amount of coverage and awareness that have amounted since 2003 when the conflict between Sudan and the people of Darfur began, it would seem probable that more aid would have been sent. Perhaps this aid could have been more physical necessities such as food, clothes and water, or maybe help would have been more effective in the form of doctors, specialists or some kind of protection for those affected.
Even if it is not our style, there could have been cooperation between nations to do something.
I am not asking for another Charlie Wilson to fly through government red tape and arm these people with everything necessary to combat the Sudanese government, but why now do we shy away from helping others in their “pursuit of happiness?”
Brett Johnson is a sophomore English major.
Darfur apathy reveals true motivation
Dogood's Post
Published: Monday, November 16, 2009
Updated: Monday, November 16, 2009 01:11
1 comments