Xhemali 1 Ilva Xhemali C.

Douglas English 1102-093 18 February, 2014

Crisis in Darfur: What is the United States role?

The country of the United States of America is seen as a superpower in todays world. What responsibilities and to what extent do they come with when you are labeled as a superpower? Does the United States truly have any obligations to other parts of the world whenever a crisis emerges? This ongoing controversial topic is debated in todays politics and written about extensively. Specifically in the country of Sudan, a region named Darfur has spurred a very controversial debate over the recent years. The issue concerns the innocent murders of civilians in large quantities due to religion, economics and race. (Kramer, OtisMontanez-Muhinda 1) In one article named Point: The U.S Has a Moral Obligation to Intervene to Stop the Genocide in Darfur authors S.M. Goldmark and Cheryl Bourassa state that The United States has a moral obligation to end the genocide in Darfur and Chad (Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa 1) Another article wrote by authors Otis Kramer and Rosalind Montanez-Muhinda approach the crisis in a contrasting viewpoint. They boldly state The United States cannot act as the worlds policeman. Both articles were written and published fairly recently in 2013 on the Point of View website. Both articles seem to support some type of involvement in the crisis from the United Sates, but in different forms. Both articles use statistics and references to political organizations to strengthen their argument. S.M. Goldmark and Cheryl Bourassa write an emotionally fueled article supporting the direct involvement of the United States in Sudan militarily and diplomatically. Their argument

Xhemali 2 Ilva Xhemali C. Douglas English 1102-093 18 February, 2014 makes a pivotal point when they state how the U.S readily supplied troops to NATO allies in the states of former Yugoslavia when mass executions of innocent civilians took place, and how low the effort in Africa is when the same events take place. (Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa 2) The authors use statistics of death ranges up to 400,000 and 2.5 million displacements of individuals caused by the Arab militiamen called the Janjaweed against powerless black Sudanese farmers. (Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa 2) The audience can be moved and compelled at such demographics. An argument based on morality triggers an emotional and immediate response and the inequality and biased help provided by the United States makes this argument sincere. However the argument is extremely one sided. It clearly has stated that The United States is the sole superpower of the world. (Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa 2) The authors do not take into account the recent upcoming and emerging superpowers. The authors could provide more substantial evidence of why all the moral obligations of the world rest on the United States shoulders. They could define what being a superpower really means in todays changing world and provide reasons why other nations are incapable of helping as much as the United States. The assumption of the undying power of the United States without support weakens the article. The unsaid consequences of direct involvement also weaken the argument. The article makes a historical reference to the holocaust which strengthens it. The authors state When the full magnitude of the Holocaust against the Jews during World War II became common knowledge, the world declared Never again. (Goldmark, S.M. Bourassa 2) The article also addresses opposition saying UN intervention was viewed as a hostile invasion by Sudan and ceasing international

Xhemali 3 Ilva Xhemali C. Douglas English 1102-093 18 February, 2014 intervention due to Darfurs objections would be equivalent to refusing to rush to the aid of a victim of rape because the rapist objected. (Goldmark, S.M. Bourassa 2) The authors Otis Kramer and Rosalind Montanez-Muhinda write an opposing article to challenge the idea of the United States power and responsibilities. Their argument supports a more diplomatic involvement rather than military force. Similar to their opposition, the article begins with background information and statistics of deaths. The article makes a strong opposition when they state the murders of peacekeepers by gunmen. Government UNAMID peacekeepers from Rwanda, Ghana, and Uganda were killed and twenty-two civilians wounded during a July 2008 attack by a convoy of gunmen. (Kramer, OtisMontanez-Muhinda 3) These particular statistics strengthen the articles argument of not directly interfering in Darfur. The authors argument claim the U.S does not need to send American troops in an Arab country that poses no threat to the U.S. (Kramer, OtisMontanez-Muhinda 3) The argument makes sense to the audience from a logical rational viewpoint. The consequences of forced and direct involvement of the US strengthen the argument, causing hostility and resentment of the U.S to escalate in the Arab world. The article continues to state several diplomatic efforts as prime examples In 2007 continuing US diplomatic action helped produce a Darfur peace agreement and a mandate for the United Nations to put multilateral boots on the ground in Darfur (Kramer, OtisMontanezMuhinda 2) However a weakness could be found with all these statements. The article fails to

Xhemali 4 Ilva Xhemali C. Douglas English 1102-093 18 February, 2014 acknowledge the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts. How well are the diplomatic efforts sustained in war torn countries and do they ever resolve anything? The controversy of U.S involvement continues in Darfur with no clear precise answer. In the case of genocides and wars, decisions based on rational and logical judgments are always harder to make than the morally correct ones emotions play into. The article written by Otis Kramer and Rosalind Montanez-Muhinda provides a slightly stronger argument because they take into consideration the consequences of U.S involvement based on facts. In contrast, the article written by S.M. Goldmark and Cheryl Bourassa fails to provide sufficient evidence to the audience of Americas superpower role. Each article supports involvement in Darfur in some way, therefore raising awareness to global issue and human rights in our current American culture.

Bibliography Goldmark, S.M.Bourassa, Cheryl. "Point: The U.S. Has A Moral Obligation To Intervene To Stop The Genocide In Darfur." Points Of View: Darfur (2013): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. Kramer, OtisMontanez-Muhinda, Rosalind. "Counterpoint: U. S. Options Are Limited In Darfur." Points Of View: Darfur (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.