Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Darfur: Policy Recommendations for the United States"

BA Thesis: Darfur: Policy Recommendations for the United States

Nadia Claudine Boegli: The question underlying this report is how should the United States deal with Darfur? In order to answer such a normative question it is necessary to have a closer look at the obstacles that the United States must handle when deciding on a policy concerning Darfur.

“The United States has a moral obligation any time you see a humanitarian catastrophe. We are the most powerful nation, we have the most stake in creating an order in the world that is stable and in which people have hope and opportunity. And when you see a genocide in … Darfur that is a stain on all of us, that is a stain on our souls” Barack Obama

President Barrack Obama, an active promoter of the Save Darfur Coalition, must now prove that he is able to maintain his morals and stand behind the promises made. As the first African American President he will be challenged not to look back in ten years from now and yet again promise "Never [to stand by genocide] again," like many of his predecessors did.

Obama, as the new president of the United States, will have to end a genocide that his predecessor George.W. Bush was incapable to stop. Over the past six years the largest region in Africa; Sudan has been the battlefield for the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century.

The intention underlying this report is to illustrate the different forms of intervention that could stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur and to make recommendations on how the United States should act in order to keep up their past promises to not again become a bystander to genocide.

Nadia Boegli is a social sciences graduate from the University of Maastricht and is currently working for the ICD.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

Download PDF: Capstone!.pdf

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

November 30, 2009

Anita Issagholyan, NYU MSGA, (8)

I like this comment! What's this?

How curious, as my undergraduate thesis was written on a similar topic. My thesis was called, "The Politics of Naming Darfur Genocide." It explored what happens exactly when the "g" word is used throughout the international community. When President Bush, Powell and others declared Darfur as genocide in 2004, what actions were taken to stop their declared 'crisis?' Not much has happened: sanctions? Yes. Naming and shaming by the UN and US? Yes. But how many troops were contributed by the US and other Western countries to be deployed in the joint AU-UN hybrid peace keeping mission?
Not enough.

Do politicians merely name and shame in order to satisfy, satiate, appease or win over civil society? (President Bush was pressured by the Save Darfur Coalition amidst a very important election. President Obama was swayed by his senior adviser Samantha Power, who coincidently wrote the most recent and comprehensive book on genocide, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.")

President Obama also promised his strict moral feelings regarding not only Darfur, but the case of Armenian genocide recognition. As he is voted into office, we witness a weaker stance on these moral issues. He could not, for one keep his promise to the Armenians and use the word genocide when discussing the Ottoman empire's slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians.

My question is, why name something a genocide if an administration is not fully willing to deal with the responsibilities that come along with such a strong word. It is, afterall, what many say, the worst crime that could ever be committed.