Does the world even care about Darfur?

Wrong the conflict is partly christian/muslim but it is just fuel added to the fire. to say that it is not an issue at all is rediculous.

I doubt the majority of people in the world know anything about Darfur or even where it is.

The UN Security Council has authorized the use of force in the past, but not often. The 1991 Gulf War is a good example. And also, as I mentioned, the UNSCRs 794 and 814 both authorized the use of force in Somalia.

I understand that the Sudanese government is very bad indeed. Nazi Germany committed its aggression before the UN Charter was written, but its unprovoked aggression against other states was a violation of international law as it was understood and commonly practiced since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Not to mention Germany violated its obligations under the Treaty of Versailles.

Sudan is perpetuating violence against its own people within its own borders. From a international law standpoint, it has always been a difficult question as to how the international community deals with intra-state security matters. One clear trigger explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter is genocide, as you astutely observed. But, who determines if an actual genocide is being committed? In a sense, the same consensus must be achieved on declaring a tragedy genocide as is needed to authorize a Chapter VII intervention.

Clearly what is happening in Darfur is horrific. I've been to a UNHCR camp outside El Fashir and seen the suffering first hand.

To answer your question on the AU troops, it is better to have them there than not there. They provide some deterrent, provide some security for the camps, etc... And they document atrocities and gather evidence that may someday (hopefully) be used in war crimes trials.

RunDaddy wrote:But, who determines if an actual genocide is being committed?

This is an important question, that goes back to my rebuttal of wejo's comment about "absolute morality."

If there were any such thing as absolute morality, then atrocities would never happen, because I believe that people are fundamentally moral. The problem is that our morals and values are a function of our culture.

If we took modern western thinking as the ideal standard for morality and values and examined any given culture under a microscope, we would find that at some time (maybe now, maybe in the past) that culture would have been in gross contravention of this moral code.

Sure, today the various factions in the Sudan are perpetuating abhorrent behaviour, and we can look back through recent decades and see similar behaviour in places like Iraq, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Somalia, Rwanda, Botswana, Ethopia, Uganda as random examples.

So this must be an eastern/African problem, right?

Well, we'd be a little hypocritical suggesting that western states are enlightened and above it all. Consider the western subjugation of Africans (and East Indians) as slaves, the British/Canadian extermination of the Beothuk, the German adventures of the 30s and 40s, Australian treatment of the Aborigines, and multiple European governance of African countries (e.g. Apartheid).

Human individuals are a social animal, but groups of humans allied under any common cause (race, religion, nationality) are an essentially anti-social organism. A natural tendency for all cultural groups is to interfere in the livelihhod of other groups. In most cases, this involves some form of armed conflict.

What's happening in Dafur, while truly horrific, is in fact a natural part of the way we interact with each other. It's always been this way, and will always be this way.

This doesn't mean I don't believe we should do something to help - we surely should. What we can all do is pressure our politicians so it gets on their radar. Unless they think they'll lose votes over it, they won't act. Well, they will, but, they won't act strongly enough to make anything happen. The other thing we can all do is donate some cash to legitimate NGOs active in the area. RunDaddy, it would be good to hear from you which groups are making the most difference in the area.

sadrunner wrote:

- The African Union (with huge amounts of UN support if China and Russia allow it) is the only group capable of dealing with this. Keep in mind I don’t like this fact, but it is my honest opinion after doing a bunch of research.

So that just supports my opinion that there will never be a UN mandate or not one soon. China seems heavily tied to the oil in Sudan and doesn't seem too concerned about human rights to begin with. And they have a veto at the UN.

As for absolute morality, yes I believe in it. That is a whole different debate we could get into. But just because Western Europeans did the same thing at one point does not make it right or deny the fact it was wrong.

And I think others have pointed out in this thread that going in there isn't just an easy thing to do. It does take considerable resources. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

wejo wrote:As for absolute morality, yes I believe in it. That is a whole different debate we could get into. But just because Western Europeans did the same thing at one point does not make it right or deny the fact it was wrong.

OK, I can't let you off the hook on that one.

Please define the essential elements of this absolute morality, please.

(I think this is actually an essential element of this discussion, rather than a whole separate debate, which is why I'd like to press the point here, thanks)

I think you will find it's remarkably difficult to get anyone to agree fully with whatever you choose to share as this universal moral code, but I would honestly like to see what you have in mind.

wejo wrote:

As for absolute morality, yes I believe in it. That is a whole different debate we could get into.

Is killing right or wrong? That should be an easy one, right? The Bible says: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Case closed, correct? Or.....Are there gray areas and "it depends" type cicumstances?? Is the Death Penalty right or wrong? Is the fact that WE, the USA, have killed 1000's of innocent Iraqis during Iraq war (the "collateral damage") in order to save other Iraqis from Saddam Hussein absolutely right or wrong?

You might want to re-think your position on "absolute morality."

why am i banned

Absolute Morality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

(wikipedia is interesting. I was also reading a thread by Poker theorist David Sklasky who does not beleive in absolute morality)

Actually I think most translations of the bible believe thou shalt not murder is more correct than thou shall not kill.

I thought we were in agreement that was was going on in Darfur was wrong and immoral.

Darfur and Iraq have a bunch of similarities.

First let's cut to the chase, the Muslims are slaughtering Christians in Darfur. They want to "purify" the Sudan. It a big problem. In this regarding they are no different than bin laden.

If the "christian world" were to send in troops (The U.S. Great Britian or even Chritian Ethophia) it would further inflame the tensions between Muslim and Christian.

We are so afraid of upsetting the Muslim world we won't even arm the Christians in Darfur. Then they might start slaughtering Muslim and the radicals will have yet another reason to kill us.

And, if we send it troops and they get picked off by IEDs at a rate of 3 to 5 a day, like in Iraq, we're ok with this? If so, what are we so against staying in Iraq?

And, if we leave Iraq to send troops to Darfur, the same thing happens in Iraq, the Sunnis, Shia and Kurd try to "purify" the country for themsleves. It becomes a genocide. When this happens, will kids then march with "free Iraq" signs on campus?

Here is the bottom line that we don't want to face, the Muslim and Christian worlds are at war. They are in Iraq, Afhganistan, Darfur, Somalia, Bosnia and many other places in the world. We should be with Iran and they have the stated gaol of destroying the Jews and Christian world. The Muslim world wants to rid the planet of all non-muslims and they are starting with the Christians.

Why are we so for going into Darfur and so against Iraq? Its very similar.

Pete,

This post scares me a little. I know a couple African leaders who would take real issue with your conclusion that systematic raping and killing is just an aspect of African culture.

I don't know what you mean by absolute morality, but the question really belongs in Philosophy 101. I know that Socrates, Confucius and Kant did believe there was truth, or a universal moral law.

I'm not sure all people are fundamentally moral, as you believe. I believe all people have the capacity to act morally or immorally. When Dostoevsky was in a labor camp in Omsk in the 1850s, he once wrote to his brother Mikhail that: "I believe man is a creature who can get accustomed to anything, and that is about the best definition of him." I think that's about right.

There is a definition of genocide in the UN Charter. UN member states, by virtue of signing the charter, have agreed to this definition. The problem I was pointing out is that because genocide triggers UNSC action under the charter, states opposed to action will simply claim that what is happening, while horrible and regrettable, is technically not genicide in their view.

MGA wrote:

i agree. but how about the ethnic cleansing happening here in the US? with the onlsaught of illegal immigration (thanks to clintons open door policy, and bush's door off the hinges policy, illegals swarm into this country like ants at a picnic.

if a male, who happens to be white, holding judeo-christian values is seen/ considered the ultimate disgrace and the great satan by much of the world and much of the US. too bad its that person who created the world's biggest super-power, the US.

check out the book:

Civil War 2, by thomas Chittum

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

-George Washington

Obviously you don't know themeaning of "ethnic cleansing". It is an insult to victims of genocide throughout history to state that the immigration crisis in the United States is "ethnic cleansing".

wejo wrote:

Absolute Morality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

(wikipedia is interesting. I was also reading a thread by Poker theorist David Sklasky who does not beleive in absolute morality)

Actually I think most translations of the bible believe thou shalt not murder is more correct than thou shall not kill.

I thought we were in agreement that was was going on in Darfur was wrong and immoral.

wejo,

wikipedia simply defines the concept of moral absolutism - it doesn't offer up a specific moral code. It's one thing to say you believe in the idea, but quite another to lay out a specific moral code.

Of course what's going on there is wrong and immoral, and I imagine most normal people would agree. The ongoing crisis is a very serious problem that the world should take much more seriously. I'm simply suggesting that the world will not take it sufficiently seriously until it's (even more) way too late, and by exploring some tangential ideas, I'm offering up my understanding why this is so. I'm not by any stretch defending what's going on.

I don't believe in absolute morality, though. In my view, that's a dangerous concept that in fact leads to more conflict, as different cultures can choose to judge others on the basis of their own ideas, and then choose to seek to eradicate them on that basis.

luv2run wrote:

I doubt the majority of people in the world know anything about Darfur or even where it is.

That's right. I'm going to Daytona in two weeks for the big race. That's something I care about.

RunDaddy wrote:Pete,

This post scares me a little.

(1) I know a couple African leaders who would take real issue with your conclusion that systematic raping and killing is just an aspect of African culture.

(2) I'm not sure all people are fundamentally moral, as you believe. I believe all people have the capacity to act morally or immorally.

(3) There is a definition of genocide in the UN Charter.

You should never be scared of ideas, but as you read my arguments in this thread, realize that to some degree I'm playing the devil's advocate to broaden the discussion. However....

(1) Systematic raping and killing in parts of Africa wasn't invented in Darfur. These are societal ills that are present in every culture (although not systematically). This is a dark side of human behaviour that is ever present throughout history. For the moment (and recent decades), it's happening in Afica. My comments weren't aimed at African culture, they were aimed at human cultures.

(2) Let me rephrase myself. First of all, I didn't mean to imply ALL people, I meant to imply on average. But I do believe that people, on balance, are fundamentally "good" if that means anything. But groups of people, by contrast, tend to be fundamentally antisocial, when acting externally (i.e. interacting with other groups).

(3) The problem with defining anything in the UN Charter, let alone something as important as the idea of genocide (which I don't believe is as simple to define as we might like to think), is that the UN has to then interpret situations against that definition. Multilateral decision making is horrendously difficult, and becomes exponentially more difficult the more controversial the concern and the more voices involved in the decision. The multilateral character of the UN (and to a lesser degree the UNSC) ensures balance, but inhibits efficient response to emergencies. If the UN had the capability to address real crises, Darfor would have been dealt with a couple of years ago, at least.

i'm happy to see this issue discussed by mainstream america, but very concerned with some of the opinions on this board. The bottom line is that more than anything, genocide in Darfur is a huamitarian issue that must be dealt with IMMEDIATELY. Already over 400,000 have died, over 2.5 million have been displaced, and as much as 80% of the villages in Darfur have been destroyed. In recent weeks the violence has escilated and now the situation looks even more dire.

We can sit here by our computers in our air-conditioned homes and talk about Darfur all day, but ultimately action must be taken, and if the government and the UN proves to be too slow, we MUST collectively act! I'm not suggesting that we march into Darfur, that would be stupid, but there are several easy things you CAN and SHOULD do.

1. Advocate for Darfur, tell your friends/families

2. wear a green save darfur wristband. you can buy a pack of 10 from savedarfur.org for 10 bucks, hand the rest out to friends or family.

3. DO SOMETHING. If you're an adult, sign up for the Genocide Intervention action alerts, sign on-line petitions, BE ACTIVE. PLEASE, I URGE you all to sign up for the gi-net newsletter at

www.genocideintervention.net

. Students, start a chapter of STAND at yoru school, a student anti-genocide coalition. more info at

www.standnow.org

I also want to bring another issue to the table in this discussion: the recent richardson peace deal. I want all of you to know that it is complete show by the Government of Sudan. The only reason they agreed to these terms is so they can make a run to hold the presidency of the African Union- which CANNOT happen! Again, send letters to elected officials to let them know this!

PLEASE, DO SOMETHING!

Great discussion here. I wish I had more time to really sit, think, and have a good discussion with you on some of these things, Pete. Perhaps some time... I'll figure out a way to reach you. I really like your approach and feel that we could disagree (a lot) and still be cool.

In short, I don't think/believe that people are fundamentally moral, and that is what causes the problems... NOT the absolute morality (or the concept of it). If an absolute morality were to actually cause more conflict, then I would challenge that such a thing were actually the absolute morality at all (obviously wouldn't appear so). I don't think that an absolute morality would reccommend that people/cultures judge others (and especially not eradicate others). However, people are the ones that do these things, and people who are not fundamentally moral (though do have a natural intuition on right/wrong) are all hypocrites... every last one. Point a person to me... any person... any at all regardless of their code/belief in life, and I'll show you a hypocrite who doesn't act consistently with their beliefs a good chunk of the time.

DO SOMETHING. wrote:

PLEASE, DO SOMETHING!

How about Arm the Christians so they can fight back?

See my earlier post, this is nothing but another front in the world-wide religious war between muslims and the non-muslim world.

You put a bunch of soliders with soup ladles between the muslim and christians and they will just kill them, like Somalia 15 years ago. But this will be on a much larger scale.

Otherwise, I take your post to mean we should help the Christian west beat back the Muslims. I'm all for it, but is this what you really want? If you do, I assume your for square for the surge in Iraq.

DO SOMETHING. wrote:

1. Advocate for Darfur, tell your friends/families

2. wear a green save darfur wristband. you can buy a pack of 10 from savedarfur.org for 10 bucks, hand the rest out to friends or family.

3. DO SOMETHING. If you're an adult, sign up for the Genocide Intervention action alerts, sign on-line petitions, BE ACTIVE. PLEASE, I URGE you all to sign up for the gi-net newsletter at

http://www.genocideintervention.net

. Students, start a chapter of STAND at yoru school, a student anti-genocide coalition. more info at

http://www.standnow.org

Just how is any of that qualifying as doing "something"?

You can tell everyone on your block and have big marches up and down your street wearing all the green you want, but what relevance or use is this going to have for anyone in Darfur?

No one is really answering the question of WHAT they want done and how they expect to do it. Saying 'stop the genocide' is all nice and fuzzy, but how do you propose going about doing it? Bomb Khartoum? Land the Marines? Maybe just get the international community to ask the bad guys nicely to stop doing what they are doing?