Debate: International military intervention in Darfur

Should the international community intervene militarily in Darfur?

Background and Context of Debate:

• Wikipedia: Darfur Conflict

Genocide? Can the violence in Darfur be considered Genocide?

Yes

• Genocide is defined by most to include the systematic murders of a group of peoples as well as deliberate displacement and abuse. More than 200,000 people have died since 2003 with other estimates ranging up to 400,000 according to Amnesty International and the UN. Over 2 million people have become displaced and many are in danger of starvation due to lack of water and food. Conclusively, Darfur is the worst humanitarian abuse in Africa, and a genocide.

• President Bush has classified the situation in Darfur as genocide as have several House and Senate members. Some of these members such as Steve Israel have been proactive in passing legislation calling for U.S. action.

• The violence in Darfur could be considered Genocide

• NATO should intervene militarily in Darfur

No

• Foreign intervention in Sudan would violate Sudanese sovereignty - Any intervention would require the consent of the Sudanese government.

• There is not enough international political support for military intervention in Darfur

Military feasibility: Is a successful intervention possible militarily at reasonable costs?

Yes

• International peacekeepers can have a huge impact on the ground.

• A no-fly zone around Darfur can be easily established with great impact. A contingent of Western fighter jets could effectively contain the serious role of Sudanese and Janjeweed gunships in the genocide.

No

• Reasonable costs being a criterion, an intervention would fail. Intervention in Darfur would be a conduit for Muslim hatred as Sudan is a Muslim country and thus violating its sovereignty would be seen as presumptuous of the Western world.

• Military success in Darfur is doubtful - The military task in Darfur is substantial.
  • Sudan's air-force would be a formidable threat to any intervening force

• US military intervention in Darfur would worsen jihadist anti-Americanism globally

International security: Is the situation in Darfur a threat to the international system?

Yes

• Sudan is a threat to African peace. By showing an obvious disregard for its own people, Sudan has hinted that it is unlikely to show regard for territorial recognition of its fellow African nations. Such an apathy to African stability is especially troubling considering Khartoum's rhetoric on efforts to become an African superpower.

• Sudan is a threat beyond its own campaign of genocide. Sudan has historically been linked to terrorists including Al Qaeda. Sudan served as Osama Bin Laden's base for operation in the past. Many argue that the Janjaweed itself is a terrorist organization supported tacitly by the state.

• Darfur and the chaos there is a threat to the international system: There are a number of threats presented by Darfur, including regional and international humanitarian, moral threats.
  • Darfur is a threat to the region in Africa. The chaos in Darfur is spilling over Sudan's borders. Chad has become a destination for Darfur refugees. This creates tensions between these countries and potential for conflict. Resistance to the Janjeweed, for example, can be staged in Chad, and possibly lead to the belief among the Sudanese government that they must intervene in Chad to quell this threat.
  • Impotency in responding to Darfur undermines confidence and engagement in international bodies: Many instances of genocide have occurred in recent decades without international intervention, and this has weakened confidence in the UN and the international community's ability to respond to international crises and to generally act meaningfully in the international system. This growing lack of confidence is dangerous as it jeopardizes the international legal framework for action, making it appear that unilateral action is a more functional course of action.

No

• The Darfur crisis does not constitute a threat to international peace and security - The Darfur crisis is a domestic matter in Sudan, and is not spilling over dramatically or uncontrollably into the region. While it is sad and unfortunate, it is not a threat to international security. In regards to Chad, Sudan's neighbor, any problems there can be contained by numerous steps.

Military humanism: Would an intervention in Darfur improve the humanitarian situation in Darfur?

Yes

No

• US and NATO humanitarian military interventions bring their own set of atrocities Noam Chomsky's The New Military Humanism , makes the case that NATO forces committed atrocities as bad or worse than the genocide that led to NATO's intervention in 1999. He argues that the United States and NATO do not hold themselves to the same humanitarian, international-legal standards as it expects from other countries. Nevertheless, the United States and NATO are the most likely to lead any intervention in Darfur. Those that advocate for intervention should understand this reality, and the accompanying risks of US-NATO action.

War on terror: Would an intervention have a positive or negative effect on the war on terror?

Yes

No

• A Western intervention in Darfur would be followed by an Islamic extremist insurgency. Osama bin Laden would rally Muslim extremists against a Western intervention in Darfur. Bin Laden has warned the Muslim world that Darfur would be the next entry point for the "Crusader-Zionists". An intervention, therefore, would play into his hands, and become an additional terrorist rallying call.[1]

US resources/priorities: Is the US able and willing to prioritize military intervention?

Yes

No

• Preventing genocide in Darfur with US troops would take them away from preventing genocide in Iraq Why favor one over the other? Since the United States is already military strained in Iraq, it is presumable that any commitment in Darfur would result in some weakening of resources for Iraq. But, many sources consider the weakening of resources in Iraq or any withdrawal of troops to be a recipe for internecine violence and genocide in Iraq. Why should we trade one for another? Are Iraqis not equally deserving of protection from genocide as Sudanese?

Organizations pro and con

Yes

• STAND - Student Anti-Genocide Coalition.
• Save Darfur Coalition
• Position: International Crisis Group on military intervention in Sudan
• US Committee for Refugees

No

International leaders on the pro and con sides of this debate

Yes

• Position:Kofi Annan on military intervention in Darfur U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that military action may be needed in Sudan to halt "ethnic cleansing". Yet, he is accused of not living up to such assertions.[2]

• Position: Hilary Clinton advocated military action in Darfur

• Tony Blair[3]

• Retired U.S. general Wesley Clark[4]

• Anthony Lake, former National Security Adviser to President Clinton, said in 2006, "It’s time to get tough with Sudan". [5]

No

Pro/con bibliography

Yes

• Peter Beinart. Editor at large for the New Republic. "How to Save Darfur". Time. September 24, 2006
• Gareth Evans (BRUSSELS). Former Chair of co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) “The world should be ready to intervene in Sudan”. International Herald Tribune. May 14, 2004 - "The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has called it 'ethnic cleansing.' President George W. Bush has condemned the 'atrocities, which are displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians.' Others are starting to use the word genocide. Whatever you want to call what is going on today in Darfur, in western Sudan, the time for forceful outside intervention is unmistakably approaching."
  • "The Responsibility to Protect"
• Eric Reeves. Professor at Smith College. "Humanitarian Intervention in Darfur: Powerful Voices Make the Inescapable Demand". May 14, 2004
• "Ex-US officials urge military action against Sudan over Darfur". Sudan Tribune. October 2nd, 2006

No

• Joschka Fischer. Former German foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005. "The EU must act in Darfur. Targeted sanctions would be a real step towards stopping the killing." April 19th, 2007 - Does not consider military action a good option.

• Lance Selfa. "Can U.S. military intervention ever bring justice?." Socialist Worker.org. May 19, 2006

• "What About Darfur? The case against intervention". AntiWare.com. May 1, 2006.

• David Rieff. "Moral Blindness: The Case Against Troops for Darfur". May 27, 2006

References:

External links:

• "How to Save Darfur". Time. September 24, 2006
• "Bush under fire for delaying action on Darfur". The Raw Story. April 11, 2007
• "Pentagon: No US Military Action Planned for Darfur". Al Pessin. Global Security.org. February 6th, 2007

Books

• Gerard Prunier. Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide. August, 2005
• Julie Flint and Alex de Waal. Darfur: A Short History of a Long War. 2006.
• [Don Cheadle and John Prendergast. Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond. May 1, 2007]
• Noam Chomsky. The New Military Humanism.
• Samantha Power and Leslie Thomas. Darfur Darfur. Jan 21, 2008.

YouTube Videos

One - U2 & Mary J. Blige (Save Darfur):