Author: Emma Parker
Is world peace really so much to ask for? Well, yeah. This modern world is rife with violence, discrimination and oppression. Collective human security remains a major concern and citizens of dozens of countries don’t enjoy half as many luxuries as we do in America. Case in point: the Sudanese region of Darfur. For the past four years, government-sponsored genocide has led to the deaths of almost half a million Sudanese people and the displacement of millions from their homes. So what’s the world’s response? Largely, it seems that there is a lack thereof. The situation in western Sudan is still dire, with no end to mass suffering in sight.
What have all the superpowers been doing to help? More specifically, what has the United Nations been doing to help? Isn’t peacekeeping its job? At first glance, and because of the unimproved conditions in Darfur, it’s easy to say that the UN has been twiddling its thumbs, too scared to take definitive action. The little media focused on the ongoing genocide mainly addresses the UN’s failure to act. Is this really the case? Although the UN’s response to the crisis was definitely delayed (the Security Council did not hold a major discussion on Darfur until one year after mass killing and displacement became systemized), in the past three years various efforts have been made that provided civilians with food, aided in establishing temporary ceasefires and peace settlements, set up refugee camps, imposed sanctions and helped African Union troops protect towns. With its limited power and inability to engage any way in armed combat, I would say that the UN has not done as poorly as we may think. In my opinion, the current situation leaves few options for the United Nations: funds are needed to support relief efforts, the Sudanese government needs to be more cooperative and individual governments need to take more decisive action. So, I surprise myself, but I mean this in saying well done, George W! Our President and the government have done a tremendous amount of good so far and are largely leading the international response. Last week, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., President Bush addressed the weak international response to Darfur and the Sudanese government’s resistance to ceasefires, peace settlements and humanitarian workers. He declared that if Sudan did not allow aid organizations to do their jobs, the US would impose new sanctions and possibly “sterner measures.”
However, while this is, of course, a welcome development, I can’t help but be skeptical. Genocide in Darfur has been going on for four years now, and it’s not like we haven’t known about it. I feel like “sterner measures” should already be in effect. The level of violence has not decreased, and the Sudanese government continually foils plans for peace. The United Nations and governments are great at speaking out against the genocide and calling on the international community to act, but no one is willing to take the first major step. The last few years have shown us that cease-fires, sanctions and threats are not sufficient to establish peace in Darfur. I don’t know what major step could be taken, but I’ll merely mention the possibility on the tip of everyone’s tongue: the forceful removal of Sudan’s government and a military occupation. Another “coalition of the willing?” It seems to me that in the case of Darfur, however there is no way to convince governments and the public to act and support one other than by appealing to a sense of morality and the oneness of humanity. This is not easy: how does the suffering of millions of civilians in an African country affect the everyday citizen of the First World? Sudan is not an international threat like Iraq was made out to be. Do we just sit back and wait until the violence runs its course?
Emma Parker is an Undeclared first-year and a Staff Writer for the Weekly. She can be reached at eparker@oxy.edu
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
