Reflections on Genocide, Soft Power, Causes of War, Political Struggle, and the Crisis in Darfur

The political realm has changed significantly since World Wars I and II: no more are wars solely between nation-states, and the power of social activism is becoming nearly as commanding as those of persuasion and coercion. The current crisis in Darfur, as shown in the movie "On Our Watch", is a perfect example of the changing actors in international politics, and the effects of using soft power to solve conflicts.

After ignoring such horrors during World War II until millions had already perished, it should be evident that the world would have learned its' lesson; yet genocides continued well into the 20^th century, the most well-known of which was the tragedy in Rwanda. After the hundred days of murder and rape that no one found cause to stop, nations and trans-national governing institutions all cried 'never again'. Yet why is genocide continuing to occur once more? With the advances in technology the world has seen in the past century, it seems almost impossible that crimes against humanity such as this can go on unnoticed. Satellite photographing, improved transportation and telecommunications, and the internet should all ensure that if genocide were occurring in the modern world today, the entirety of the western world would hear and put a stop to it.

In fact, most world leaders have known about Darfur since relatively soon after the ethnic cleansings began, but have chosen to do nothing about it. This inaction has been especially apparent in the behavior of the UN - even though numerous people and even officials in the UN itself have been sending notices, information, and urges to stop the offenses in Darfur. One of the main arguments against recognizing these crimes is the inherent consequences of using the word 'genocide'; some people were of the opinion that if this word were used and proper action were to be taken, it would interfere with the so-called 'political-process' so that there could be a 'lasting solution' in Darfur. In reality, action generally hasn't been taken because of economic and corporate reasons. Sudan is China's biggest supplier of oil, thus China does not want to upset the Sudanese government by voting with the UN to 'interfere' with their affairs. Although the United States has acknowledged the situation in Darfur as genocide, our government too has neglected to take action - some say primarily because of our economic ties to China and therefore our indirect ties to Sudan. This is proof of the changing actors in the political arena; due to the growing number of trans-national and multi-national corporations, conflicts can no longer be solved the way they had been in the past. With such a global economy and dependence on foreign trade, ethic cleansing that is confined solely to a third-world country seems like less of a priority to the western world.

The crisis in Darfur is also an excellent example of how soft power has become one of the dominant weapons for social change. As seen with the response to the AIDS epidemic and the reaction to world poverty, non-governmental organizations are becoming more and more influential in world affairs. In May of 2006, the organization 'Save Darfur' held the largest anti-genocide rally and has continued to be one of the loudest voices against the social injustice occurring in the region. Celebrities such as Mia Farrow and George Clooney have helped Save Darfur to raise awareness, and the organization led a very successful campaign entitled 'the Genocide Olympics' in protest against China.Although the situation in Darfur seems dire and the world's inaction is extremely reprehensible, I think the efforts of social groups have really made a difference in holding guilty parties accountable. The movie "On Our Watch" made it clear that the crimes against humanity occurring in this region must be stopped at all costs, regardless of the economic implications, simply because the lives of hundreds of thousands of people hold more weight than anything.