Author: Sarah Flocken
The United States of America is a country that considers itself a global watchdog of democracy and human rights. In other words, the U.S. of A likes to stick its collective nose in the business of other countries that may not conform exactly to Western standards of government and social values. War hawks and even some pacifists may accuse me of extreme isolationism, but I believe, for the most part, that U.S. involvement in other countries’ political and social business has led to quite a few unnecessary wars and the casualties thereof. I also consider myself a humanitarian and absolutely, ardently believe in basic rights for all human beings.
I am naturally conflicted, then, as to what the U.S.’s role should be in protesting elections in other countries believed by its citizens, as well as by other countries, to be fraudulent and unethical. However, despite my isolationist views, I believe that the U.S. can and should support anti-Bashir political groups and join them in protesting the legitimacy of the elections held in Sudan this past Sunday, April 11. Furthermore, the Obama administration needs to effectively hold President Omar al-Bashir accountable for his war crimes.
Sudan, an oil-rich African country bordered by Chad, Ethiopia and Egypt, was largely introduced into America’s consciousness in 2003, when its western region of Darfur became the site of the largest mass-displacement and genocide campaign in recent history. Targeting specific ethnic groups in Darfur associated with rebel anti-government groups, the Sudanese government’s janjaweed warriors, under Omar Al-Bashir, destroyed over 400 villages, killed over 300,000 people and displaced close to 2.7 million, according to the Save Darfur Coalition.
U.S. leaders have recognized the depth of this problem. In a 2004 statement, President George Bush officially labeled the crisis in Darfur as “a genocide.” This was the most explicit statement on another country’s ongoing conflict a president had made in years.
During his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama, along with opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton, released a joint “candidate’s statement” to various Darfur activist organizations (Amnesty International, Save Darfur and others) which read: “We deplore all violence against the people of Darfur. There can be no doubt that the Sudanese government is chiefly responsible for the violence and is able to end it . . . “
Public figures and leaders across the political spectrum agree that the situation is a major violation of human rights, and that Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, under whose regime these atrocities were committed, should be punished. However, recognition is not enough.
Omar Al-Bashir, whom the International Criminal Court has convicted as a war criminal, has set up obviously fraudulent elections in order to secure his reign and campaign of genocide. We stepped in to change the Iraqi government, so why aren’t we getting involved in Sudan?
The last time the U.S. got involved in another country’s political affairs, we ended up in un-winnable, years-long wars; see Iraq for details. Given this, the U.S. should keep its hands out of the Sudanese elections and let the Sudanese people figure it out for themselves, right? Wrong.
Isolationism would have been the best course for Iraq, since it turns out we essentially invaded Iraq based on unsubstantiated allegations of their “weapons of mass destruction,” which we long ago gave up finding. We do, however, have legitimate cause to be concerned about Sudan.
The U.S. has already indicted Omar al-Bashir as a war criminal and knows he has rigged the election – it seems illogical that we are hesitating here when we have gone in, almost without hesitation, before in Iraq. If there is any election or political problem to which the U.S. should lend its support, it is the fraudulent elections in Sudan, orchestrated by a convicted war criminal.
Candidates on all sides of the political spectrum have recognized the Darfur region as a site of genocide. There is tangible proof of the atrocities committed in Darfur by Bashir’s regime. If anything, this is the most legitimate case for U.S. involvement in foreign affairs in recent history. In the case of Sudan, I say, forget isolationism. Forget our other involvements. Why aren’t we helping the people of Sudan?
Sarah Flocken is a senior ECLS major. She can be reached at sflocken@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
