Debate: International military intervention in Darfur

Should the international community intervene militarily in Darfur?

Background and Context of Debate:

Genocide? Can the violence in Darfur be considered Genocide?

Yes

• Argument:The violence in Darfur could be considered Genocide

• Argument:NATO should intervene militarily in Darfur

No

• Argument:Military success in Darfur is doubtful
  • Sudan's air-force would be a formidable threat to any intervening force

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

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

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

• Argument:The Darfur crisis does not constitute a threat to international peace and security

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

• 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.[1]

• Position: Hilary Clinton advocated military action in Darfur

• 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

• 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.

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

• Noam Chomsky. The New Military Humanism.