What is to be done in Darfur?

For those of you that do not know, Darfur is a region of western Sudan, home to millions. There is a conflict there in which the Janjaweed funded by the government in Sudan, are systematically targeting and eradicating ethnic groups like the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit. Estimated death tolls range from 50,000 to 450,000 however, most NGO's (Non Governmental Organizations) estimate 400,000 dead. The conflict has been described as both ethnic cleansing as well as genocide. While the United Nations has not gone so far as to call it genocide, President George W. Bush has.

Today, the government of Sudan does not wish for the United States or the United Nations to intervene there. Yet, Bush has called it genocide, and it is the obligation of nations to intervene when faced with blatent occurances of genocide. Many will then of course ask why the U.S. has not intervened? There are multiple factors that can be cited for the reasons that the U.S. has not interevened; the first being the obvious issue of racism and the possibility that a largely caucasion population could care less if a predominantly native african population is thoroughly destroying itself. The second possibility, is that the United States would love to come to the rescue of those innocents being slaughtered in Darfur, but that it simply cannot. Assuming that we are not the barbaric racists that have traditionally sullied much of American history, and that steps have been made to achieve generational thought reformation, we will assume the United States' inability to take action in Sudan is precisely the reason it has not.

The next question, why are we unable? The answer, Iraq. Whether or not one believes the war in Iraq is a good thing, the worst curse, or something inbetween, it is still a major reason for the prevention of American action elswhere. Some are worried about the potential for rising conflicts in Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, and rightfully so as the U.S. cannot afford to even engage militants in Sudan to save innocent lives, let alone challenge entire nations. This is the reason in part the world has seen emboldened leaders like Chavez and Ahmadinijad, not solely because of their reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, but also because of smaller regional power vaccumes in which the U.S. has not completely abandoned but clearly comprimised, most likely due to war efforts in Iraq (troops, eqiupment, billions of dollars, etc.).

The short-sighted quick fix which many blindly promote, is the removal of soldiers in Iraq to deploy elswhere. Others would institute a draft. While we are seeing troop reductions in Iraq which has been unconfirmed as to its relevance, the U.S. need not draft its citizens, nor abandon its efforts in Iraq. There are more options!

In foreign policy, power can be seen on multiple levels. The pursuit of national interests is the ultimate goal of U.S. foreign policy, as it should be. However, there comes a moment when a tradeoff must be made, that being between the national interest and the principles of a nation. The U.S. has historically abandoned principles, for power, prosperity, and peace. While all four are in the national interest, all four occuring at once throughout the spectrum of the American diplomatic scope is rare. Fortunately, there is a way for the United States to potentially promote its principles, for example rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in such a place as Darfur, while minimalizing the affects on its power, prosperity, and peace, possibly even boosting the affects in a positive way. There are limitless possibilites for the expansion of American "soft power" when it promotes its principles!

There is a catch though to saving Darfur, and that is that the U.S. cannot do it alone. In the years between the end of the Cold War and the second invasion of Iraq the world had seen what appeared to be a concerted effort by both the United States and its allies to approach international conflict using multilateralism. Multilateral action was seen in places such as Kosovo, Kuwait, and Afghanistan predeecing 9/11. The multilateral action of much of the world seemed to be working well, although there were still problems with the Iraqi government, they were isolated and contained for the most part. This not being quite good enough in a post-9/11 world for the U.S., compelled it into unilateral action in 2003. Any notions of a broad coalition are fantasy when it comes to boots on the ground and operational costs in Iraq.

So, the U.S. acted alone, justifiable in a post-9/11 world right? Justifiable or not, there are more than enough troops and able bodies to intervene in Darfur at a moments notice, and they are right across the pond. Russia and China cannot be relied on to take up such a cause in Darfur, but the Europeans should be expected to! However, European nations are sitting back and watching the difficult situation the U.S. is facing globally and like a kid on a playground "taking his ball and going home." Whatever it takes to compel the Europeans to pull their weight, the president needs to take that action, even if it is an action that makes his blood boil. Following American principles, and stopping the genocide, must supercede all facets of the ego. everyone knows the Europeans took it personal that the United States actied without them in general in Iraq. That is no reason for them to retreat from multilateral action elsewhere. Even if it takes an apology from president Bush to the allies, stating that the unilateral action the U.S. took in Iraq was wrong, and that it should have worked multilaterally (notice not saying that action in Iraq was wrong), it still must be done. Will it be humbling for Americans? Yes. Could it improve relations with our allies? Yes. Is multilateral action the best option anyway? Emphatically yes!

For genocide to occur in the first place is a great failure of the world and its hegemonic power the U.S. Yet, for genocide to continue when there are options not yet exhausted is a disgrace and a parade of cowardice in the face of what many consider to be evil.

So, the other day I attended this school function pertaining to diversity and race. It was put on by some of my fellow students most of whom I have had classes with or at least seen around campus and hold in high regards. This function consisted of a panal of students from diverse backgrounds where they were presented with questions about race and their experiences in their lives which related to that issue. Some panelists were very bright, intelligent, and thoughtful even suprisingly intellectual. Others were predictable, arrogant, and close minded and a few seemed a little unsure. I probably took issue with at least one thing every panelist said to some extent, but that kind of thing is to be expected when dealing with this issue.

-I didn't mind the "white" panelist who apparently has never experienced any racism in her life, I find that difficult to believe... but she said she feels her community is an invisible one anyway... sure.
-I didn't mind the half "white" half "black" panelist who considered herself more "black" and implied that whites really don't have any problems nor do they need any help... you can believe that, thats fine.
-I didn't even mind the Mexican-American panelist who in my mind perpetuates the racism he feels so victimized by when he stated "I stay away from the west side of Greeley... (which is predominantly white and upper class) I don't get along with those people." Good, you have that right.

I did however take issue with two common threads woven into many of the panelists comments.

First we have this common answer to the question "what are you" or "what do you consider yourself?" At least three panelists said they do not consider themselves American because they have not been treated like Americans. I was taken aback. If there happens to be a soul out there reading this now that can tell me a) just what exactly an American is and b) what is the historical standard for how they are supposed to be treated, I may consider discussing how the issue of race has excluded some from feeling like Americans. The fact of the matter is, it is a pretty common feeling to be excluded, ostricized, and opressed in this country and it transcends skin color. In fact it is so common it could literally be considered a quintessentially American phenomenon that everyone doesn't quite fit into their given community. I can think of only a half of a handful of places on this Earth let alone this country where everyone is included in every aspect of a given society. To say you are treated differently because of one of your differences, is what it feels like to be an American. Try being a woman, throughout most of American history. How about an Irish immigrant, even an Italian immigrant, or Russian, or Polish. Same race... hardly. Try being an English immigrant of the middle class with no land for much of American history, its not slavery but all these things factor into being what it means to be "treated like an American" and the misperception of some of the panelists that all "whites" in this country have it much easier. Hell, try being a southerner who has to move to Chicago, and see how you're stereotyped there. Some fates are worse than others, but being treated poorly by the society you live in is not purely a function of race (although it often is), and it is not something that upper class "whites" never experience (even if race A has experienced it more than race B).

My second issue with the panel is their inability to answer the question about their self-fulfilling prophecies. Their inability to comprehend this question was not surprising, but their answers were kind of fun to listen to because all but one panelist referred back to how what they percieved themselves as affected how they percieved a given situation or experience, further entrenching their belief in what they had already decided was their fate based on their race. That is the self-fullfilling prophecy and they inadvertantly displayed how it works quite well. The astute would have been entertained.

My last issue, and likely the biggest is with the key note speaker. For my readers, I must first comment that I did not stay for longer than the opening thirty seconds of his speech. I had some things to do that evening which probably could have waited, but I found him distasteful and highly prejudicial and errands seemed to me the more worthy endeavour. The speaker was Dr. Hermon George Jr., a professor of Africana Studies at the University of Northern Colorado. I was lucky enough to be seated near enough to him to catch him looking at me with disdain rolling his eyes when I commented to one of my peers on the racist attitude of the Mexican-American panelist. At the time I thought nothing of Dr. George's telling gander and continued the criticism of the panelist. About a half an hour later that moment was used as the opening to his speech, insisting that racism in the United States is an issue he will only discuss under the umbrella of white supremecy, and that had his seatmate (me) who had accused a panelist of being racist (I did) known the actual definition of racism (I do actually... 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination... Thank you Merriam Webster) that his seatmate (again me) would not have made that comment. It was at that moment that I pushed the eject button on seat four in row two, in an attempt to save as many brain cells as humanly possible and escape the sweeping arm of his ridiculous agenda driven ideology.

Now, it is important to note that I am just as much against white supremecy as the next liberal activist. It is an awful ideology and goes against everything I believe in and stand for. I admit that historically and contemporarily it is a major issue in the United States and I am in agreeance with Dr. George that it is an issue. It being an issue does not make it the only issue, even if it is the biggest in his life or even if it is the biggest in the country. There are those among us of all races that feel the need to "fight the white." However, it is recklessly irresponsible and blatenly ignorant for a Doctor of Comparative Culture to say that the only racism in the United States is the racism in the context of white supremecy. No, I did not stay for his speech I refuse to listen to any nonsense based on his premise. Even when I tried to consider where he would go with it logically in the possible sense that white racism causes more racism among the races and the possibility for reciprocal racism, it still could not account for the numerous happenings in my life and numerous possibilites I and any thinking human could possibly think up as a scenerio. His premise implies either that it is only white people in this country who are capable of racism, a racist remark in itself, or that socialization in this country due to the overbearing white supremicist attitude has proven that whites in general are racists toward non-whites and non-whites only react to that pressure. This is a gross, broad, hasty, sweeping generalization of all the people in America, all the people are the necessary population for this question because it is all the people that make up the problem and which the problem affects. In the end Dr. George has the right to believe what he wants to believe, and as long as the University of Northern Colorado wants to write his checks he will have his pulpit. However, I do consider these types of views and that type of speech to be harmful to impressionable students, students looking for excuses, and students who unwittingly will fulfill their self-fulfilling prophecies. But that seems to be his agenda, and that seems to be what he wants.

"The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice." Mahatma Ghandhi