Sunday, April 30, 2006
Letter To The Editor
The first genocide of the 21st century is well underway—over the past two years 400,000 people have already been murdered, and there are no signs of the slaughter abating. This reprehensible killing is raging in the western region of Sudan called Darfur. Despite the outrage expressed by many leaders, the United Nations has only been able to raise 32% of the $746 million needed to fund operations in the region. The war has now spread to neighboring Chad. More and more people are being unjustly murdered while the world watches and does nothing. We must act now. Please join the fight against genocide by petitioning Congress and the President to act more forcefully to stop the murder of defenseless, innocent human beings. God commands us. Justice demands it. Love propels us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Very well put. I am especially impressed by the impeccable spelling and grammar of the piece and the use of good descriptive words ;). Now, two points or questions? 1. How do you respond to the argument that the US (I don't really want to talk about the UN at this point) already has too many troops committed to other areas of the word (namely Iraq) to adequately address this issue (Is the UN to do it or should the US take the lead in this as David Kilgour seems to think? I guess that's partially the question). And, 2. $746 million does not really seem like a lot of money (what is that - every American giving $2? Something like that) - why has it been so difficult for the UN to raise the money? Are they taking the murders seriously or are they sitting on their haunches waiting for US/Canada/Britain/France/insert whomever (sorry, just had to throw France in because Chad at one point, if I'm not mistaken, was a French colony - I suppose they could donate their white flags for tourniquets?) to lead out in this? And, if they are, what will it take for one of these nations to do so? Also, being the international community group, if they are waiting for one of the member nations to do so, why are they waiting?
One further question - what do you think of the recent (I think by the UK government) argument that the UN should hire 'mercenary troops' for their peacekeeping missions such as the one they should start in the Sudan?
It is my opinion that the US cannot take the lead role in supplying manpower to the region. However, we could take a very active diplomatic and humanitarian role. It is incumbent upon those countries that have not committed the military might in Iraq and Afghanistan like the US and UK have, to supply the military support needed. The African Union is doing an abyssmal job, partyly because their objective is so restrictive. They are in the region as peacekeepers, and consequently have very little teeth to adequately protect those who are being tormented by the janjaweed and others. Military entrepreneurship is being stifled by rigid bureaucratic rules.
As to the $746 million...indeed that isn't very much money. However, we must realize that the UN is not in the region as a military force per se, and so the cost is much less. The UN, through the AU, is working in the peacekeeping capacity. So the budget is quite small. Which is even more disconcerting. It's hard for an organization to take on an even more active role, when it can't even fund half of its limited operations.
As to who supplies this money; it's the member countries of the UN. No one country is being looked at to supply all or a majority of the funding. Instead, the UN is appealing to all countries to supply the necessary funding--much like how the fundraising for tsunami relief occurred. All countries, especially those that are not actively engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan must supply the troops and money to Darfur.
I will say that this is yet another event that shows the impotence of the UN with regards to "peacekeeping." A body who's express mission is to promote and sustain peace is failing miserably at even gaining the upperhand on a well-publicized genocide. The UN didn't act in Rwanda and it's not acting in Darfur. That's why it is imperative that responsible citizens urge the American government to take a forceful lead role in maneuvering resources to the area.
The British idea of mercenaries is certainly an interesting one, but I'm not real comfortable with the idea just yet.
Post a Comment