The End of Genocide

Since February of 2003, a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions has ravaged the region of Northern Sudan known as Darfur, threatening to destroy the rich and storied culture of a number of tribes and countless families. Every day, hundreds of innocent Sudan citizens fall victim to the perils of war; complications such as disease, starvation, displacement and slaughter have become just as ingrained as sleeping into the tragic lives of these afflicted people. In situations, such as that in Darfur, it has become imperative that the United States acts as the hegemonic state that it is, and intercedes before death tolls soar to exceedingly unbearable numbers. Additionally, it is the responsibility and charge of the United Nations and other world powers to intervene in such situations as the nation states of the world order are under strict obligation by way of the Genocide Convention to take immediate and dynamic action to prevent and deter such disasters. Interstate calamities of this proportion have a tremendous affect on international politics and require the attention of the world. Intervention in genocide prevents the calamities these failed states may present to the world's political climate. The situation in Darfur has been deteriorating at an exponential rate and outside involvement is certainly necessary and long overdue. This model displays the catamount importance by which genocide affects international relations; further, it expresses the acute need for action and swift involvement in genocide situations by the United States, the UN, and the international community alike.

The first and most paramount reason for involvement in situations of genocide is for the protection of basic human rights. The premier role of a government is the protection of both the life and the liberty of its people. When a government is no longer able to protect the rights and liberties of its people, including the right to free speech and assembly, and a freedom from social or racial discrimination, outside intervention should be considered (Chong, 1993). However, when a government not only fails to protect these human rights, but also is a direct threat to them, it becomes immediately necessary for other states to become involved. Unfortunately, such is the case in Darfur, as it has been in genocides of the past such as that in Rwanda, and Germany during World War II. The situation in Darfur escalated to genocide when rebel groups present in Darfur rebelled against the government as an outcry against years of political and social discrimination (Straus, 2005). In response, the Arab leaders in place supported and funded a militia group, called the Janjaweed, which was to eliminate threats from the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit tribes (Conflict History: Sudan, 2007). No person of any state should be exposed to racial discrimination by his or her government, especially when that inequality becomes life threatening.

Though states have a right to sovereignty, or to conduct domestic affairs as they see fit in accordance with their law, that right is abruptly lost when it has been so severely abused. In such a case as Darfur, where government inflicted death tolls rise well above 50,000 people (Crisis In Darfur, 2007), and over 1.2 million additional people have been displaced forcefully from their homes, a neutral global stance is no longer appropriate (O'Keefe, 2004). In turn, mediation is unavoidable in genocidal situations.

Unfortunately, in the international community, the direct threat to human life is not always enough to trigger the necessary response. In these cases, it is important to demonstrate other key reasons for the support of victims in genocide situations. The problems of infectious states, such as Sudan, are not only local or regional threats. Continued domestic unrest in such states can and often does have a profound impact on international affairs. A primary interest for external states regarding internal conflicts of other states is the ability for terrorists to thrive and organize in failed states, or states that are in conflict. This is an obvious and direct issue of international security because it promotes and allows the training and advancement of terrorist groups that could inflict havoc on the international community (Mallaby, 2002). This is a motivating prompt for outside involvement into the domestic affairs of failing states and justifies a demand that the international community react to genocide. In addition, states must become actively present in genocides to prevent corrupt leaders from sustaining power and influencing regional actors. Leaders of such states that promote and fund the slaughter of its citizens are both undesirable and must be prevented from influencing their neighbors, like Hitler did during World War II. In order to prevent such happenings, state actors, especially the United States and the UN must employ direct projection of resources to states in question to prevent the abilities of corrupt leaders.

Besides a moral and political obligation to stop genocide as listed above, the UN is legally bound by the Genocide Convention to interfere and stop genocide or genocide conspiracy of any kind. The United States, as one of the premier drafters of the convention should too be held to the same responsibility as the UN (Power, 2002). The Genocide Convention was enacted by the UN in January of 1951 and requires prevention and punishment of any kind of genocide, or attempts at genocide, by any government, officer, or individual whether in a time of peace or war (OHCHR). This declaration, and its inauguration as a UN charter binds the national community to collaborative action and deployment of aide to victims of genocide. Unfortunately for those who oppose outside involvement in domestic affairs like genocide, this charter amendment requires the states of the UN to act upon a resolution, which they enacted. Ignoring this important resolution not only undermines the power of the United Nations, but it promotes atrocious acts by governments and leaves millions of innocent victims desolate and vulnerable.

There are those who bitterly oppose the United States or United Nation's infiltration into other state's issues and believe a more isolating stance should be held. The capital reason behind this point of view is somewhat realist in its core: believers that oppose intervention in Darfur claim is not a threat to the international community and therefore should be ignored. They further state that intervention in Darfur by any but local states is irrational. This, however realist one claims to be, is not a valid argument. The first claim is easily refuted: the current situation in Darfur is not only an eminent threat to regional states in Africa, but it is a potential harm to worldwide political stability. The domestic state of a nation practicing ethnic cleansing is severely unstable because of spillover affects. A spillover affect is a way in which a local disturbance may spread to neighboring countries. This relates to the "contagiousness" of civil conflicts; this spread brings conflict to entire regions, which makes the situation even more internationally relevant. The second argument's refute is supported by the fact that these spillovers occur and violence spreads to surrounding states. If large regions of the globe are in conflict, it becomes an issue that the global community must address; therefore, acting out of their own self-interest, taking action is the only rational conclusion for world leaders like the United States. When a present threat exists a nation must respond accordingly.

It has already been made clear that the United States and the United Nations should be the pioneers in genocide intervention. The United States is the world's last remaining superpower and its presence in Darfur and other areas undergoing genocide would pose as a domineering threat to those guilty of such crimes. The United States is one of the few states in the world that has the power, and the power projection, to implement strategies to eliminate tragedies like the one in Darfur. However, the United States cannot act alone in this distinguished endeavor and needs the full support of the United Nations to undermine the legitimacy of its undertaking. It has become apparent that, as in most situations of violence, the presence of peace peacekeepers is not necessarily sufficient to stop violence. The need for peacemakers, who have the ability to act offensively against groups involved, is apparent and the time for troop deployment is now. The United States and the UN, should lead the charge against such atrocities, thus deterring future genocide and ending current ones, in an aggressive manner using both soft and hard power. This means the deployment of military and troops, as well as economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. In addition, those who break international laws outlined in the Genocide Convention should stand before the International Criminal Court and face the consequences for their actions. Finally, the UN must seek to establish zones of peace surrounding states with conflict to prevent further issues.

One of the most tragic displays of brutality in our world is the mass murder of innocent people, and it should be the role of international leaders to deter this type of behavior. Victims in such situations deserve immediate intervention and relief from the United States and other states alike. In cases where governments are a direct threat to their citizen's human rights, powerful actors should be required to assist. Furthermore, it is important to prevent dangerous leaders that commit such acts from retaining power and from drawing their neighbors into conflict. Finally, because of the passing of the Genocide Convention, the UN is not only morally, but also legally obliged to intervene in genocide. Despite frequent rebuttal, there is no rational reason for isolating these victims. It is in the interest of powerful nations to prevent these types of devastating conflicts. Adversities such as Darfur are desolate and ongoing dilemmas that tend to last for many years. It is the responsibility of utmost importance of the United States and other powers to establish strict international policy for dealing with genocide to ensure that future generations do not have to face its hardships. Ethnic cleansing is a hateful crime that victimizes far too many citizens in our world and it is time the international community responded swiftly and strongly to end its negative impacts on global politics.

Chong, Dennis (1993). How People Think, Reason, and Feel about

Rights and L. American Journal of Political Science 37.

(June 1989). Conflict History: Sudan. Crisis Group, Retrieved November 5 2007,

from http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/

(May 2007). Crisis in Darfur: The Current Situation. Crisis Group, Retrieved

November 5 2007, from http://www.crisisgroup.org/home

Mallaby, Sebastian (April 2002). The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism,

Failed States, and the Case for American Empire. Foreign

Affairs.

O'Keefe, E (September 9, 2004). Crisis in Sudan. Washington
Post.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved November

10, 2007, from Convention on the Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide Web site: http://www.unhchr.ch/

html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

Power, Samantha (2002). "A Problem from Hell": America and the

Age of Genocide.

Straus, Scott (February 2005). Darfur and the Genocide Debate. Foreign Affairs.