For years, the people of the United States were oblivious to the hardships suffered by those in Darfur. Lately - thanks in large part to the youth of the nation - awareness about the massive genocide problem in the Sudan has been growing. There have been countless fundraisers, petitions, and angry letters sent to Congressmen. However, the government of the United States has been slow to act; choosing to close its eyes to the present day holocaust. Though the United States has recently begun to act, the half-hearted efforts of the current government is not enough. The United States needs to take further action to save the suffering people of Darfur.
Some may ask why should the United States take action in Darfur? Genocide is occurring there. “As a member of the National Security Council we have, through the UN charter, an obligation to act to prevent these types of crimes” (Bristow). The United States should use its economic and political power to change the horrible circumstances in Darfur. Does the murder of innocent civilians in the midst of a cease-fire violate our belief in ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’? (Bristow). The United States is dragging its heels and trying to ignore both its moral duty and its duty as a nation of power. The United States has done this previously, and it ended up with an attack on Pearl Harbor and American lives lost (not to mention the millions of Europeans and Jews that were killed). Only then were we willing to take action to stop one of the most horrible crimes against humanity in history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it: do we really need another Holocaust to teach us that taking action to stop genocide is a must?
Military action would be an ideal course of action since “…Given the weaknesses of the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed, I assume the operation would ordinarily be eminently doable” (Nossel). However, sending a substantial amount of troops to Iraq could feasibly over-extend our military. Politically speaking, gaining support for another foreign war would be nearly impossible with the current situation in Iraq. People are tired of sacrificing American lives for foreign affairs that do not affect our country in obvious ways. The United States needs to find another way to help the oppressed in the Sudan.
“The African Union is weak, indeed, in many respects it is just getting off the ground…If the Bush administration wishes to help, then let them support the African Union financially and diplomatically” (Fletcher). Ideally, if the UN, NATO, US, EU and AU joined together, the combined financial and military support could provide immense protection for the refugees and defense against the terrorizing Janjaweed. Thousands of peacekeepers and supplies could be sent to Darfur; goods and protection that could easily make the difference between life and death to those currently displaced within Sudan. If the US wishes to remain as uninvolved as possible, then they should lean on NATO to take action. NATO is “better positioned than any other organization to become the focal point for partnering with the AU… NATO should take the lead in negotiating terms with the AU” (Nossel).
The United States needs to use its economic, political, and possibly military power to support the refugees in Darfur. By neglecting to do so, we are telling other countries that ignoring oppression and cruelty is okay. Does our War on Terror only apply to those countries that are economically beneficial to us? The oppression and violence in the Sudan is probably the worst in the world; yet every country thus far has been slow to react. The United States needs to help those being abused in Sudan in whatever way possible.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller



I don't mean to sound cruel and inhuman, but until the Sudan conflict becomes an issue directly affecting the US or its interests, I can't find it practical to become involved.
Your WWII reference:
"The United States has done this previously, and it ended up with an attack on Pearl Harbor and American lives lost (not to mention the millions of Europeans and Jews that were killed). Only then were we willing to take action to stop one of the most horrible crimes against humanity in history. "
The US didn't go to war to stop one of the most horrible crimes against humanity. They went to war to protect its interests. They declared war on Japan, the Germany declared war on the US. Only then did the United States invade Europe and find the atrocity that was being committed there. Your use of history was a good try, but it failed to identify the motivation.
You have a point, but I still think the parallel is meaningful/relevent.
What makes the problem in Darfur more important than the rest of the world? What about Somalia. In Somalia, thousands of people die each day. Meanwhile there is no government at all. Pirates roam the seas, stopping aid from reaching them.
The reason why you never hear about Somalia is because reporters are too afraid to visit Somalia. In no way am I downplaying the horrible things happening Darfur, but we must remember. There is a whole other world out there, we horrible things are happening. Please don't downplay the rest of the world. Please realize that our government has many things going on and just pointing out one flaw should not symbolize our whole government.