Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: International military intervention in Darfur

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 04:58, 28 November 2007; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Should the international community intervene militarily in Darfur?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Genocide? Can the violence in Darfur be considered Genocide?

Yes


No


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

Yes

  • 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




International force: Will an international force perform appropriately?

Yes

No

  • Argument: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. One of the problems is 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.



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

Yes

No

  • Argument: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



No

International leaders on the pro and con sides of this debate

Yes

  • Anthony Lake, former National Security Adviser to President Clinton, said in 2006, "It’s time to get tough with Sudan". [2]


No

Write Subquestion here...

Yes


No



References:

External links:

Books

  • Noam Chomsky. The New Military Humanism.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.