In his poem, “Rwandan Genocide,” William Cheesman states, “all the shouts every night, screams of pain, screams of fright, screams for mercy, to see morning’s light, to pardon them and to stop this fight. ” Illustrated in the poem is the general perspective of a victim facing genocide, the pain is incomprehensible, and the urgency of its conclusion is precedent over everything. In multiple occasions, people have plotted the killing of a large group of people, and carried out. In 1975, communist leader Pol Pot rose to power and sought to enhance society by executing his road to utopia, communism.
Eliminating outside influences was the tool to achieve it. Pol Pot formed the Khmer Rouge army, and killed 2 million people. Later, in Rwanda the Hutu ethnic group killed 800,000 people of the Tutsi group. In response to the favoritism Belgians showed to the Tutsi, the Hutus had a radio broadcast calling for the killing of Tutsi. The UN took two months to label the killing as genocide. Still occurring today, the Darfur Genocide has claimed 400,000 lives. The Janjaweed militia was formed to attack the ethnic Africans of Darfur. Genocide occurs when evil reaches its peak, but can this successfully be shortcutted?
Countries like the US need to have the will to solve the problems first, then we can make efforts to assist in ending the genocides abroad. To promise that all people will do good is impossible, but impactful measures can be made to impair the evil. America combating genocide can prevent genocide, and is an obligation because it will save innumerable precious lives, enhance our public relations through sustaining a better reputation for our country, and make clear of a consequence of genocide to discourage future villainous leaders.
Initially, a tremendous amount of people have been killed in genocides, and the US has a moral bligation to invest effort into to stopping them. In Rwanda, at the moments when the brutal killings could have been prevented, opportunities were missed from other countries and the UN. According to Gregory Stanton, member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Belgian and French troops flew into Rwanda to save some of their own nationals, but aside from this, most people were left to die.
The US and a vast majority of western countries knew of the genocide within its dawn, but it took two months for the world to officially acknowledge that a calamity was occurring. It is clear hat our recognition of a genocide is entirely a reflection on the interest seen. In that case, 800,000 were murdered, and the US and others felt no inclination to lesson the tragedy. Regarding this, an impactful way to help is to establish refugee camps and safe areas near the conflict, and can be successfully utilized if we value the lives of others. In short, it is a critical for the US.
Secondly, having a positive general image is paramount for a nation’s stability and overall success. What can be more credible than saving innumerable lives, and making the world better? During the Cambodian Genocide, at a UN general assembly, the US voted in favor of the Khmer Rouge controlling Cambodia’s seat at the UN. America is supposed to be a country that sides with peace, but are making it apparent to the world that this isn’t the case. In a like manner, former president Barack Obama promised not “to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter. ”
Conversely, as stated by the Huffington Post, “4. million people are in need of lifesaving humanitarian aid. ” When a conflict is on a scale of such, bystanders are at fault, and a clear illustration of our is made to the rest of the world. In 2004, the UN refugee agency provided food, shelter, and healthcare to 85,000 Darfurians, but today, the UN peacekeeping missions are no more. It is imperative that we execute our values as a nation opposed to solely possessing them in order to create better foreign relationships. If the US does good, other nations will return it; not all but enough to retain and acquire allies.
If America should engage in a war, allies will be at hand. Even if they sustain neutrality in realtime at war, the nations will still be unified by shared values, and therefore a bigger threat to the enemy prior to learning that. On the other hand, if the US, establishes itself as a defiant bystander as we have in many enocides, our trade relationship will decline.. with our security. Third, if a person feels as if there is no barrier to the levels hatred they can perpetrate, it takes one person with evil intentions to carry out a calamity.
It is essential for the United States to sanction countries that commit genocides, in order to actually discourage them, opposed to the US’s lack of involvement in Darfur, which practically encourages them. The world will possess less acts of hatred if people know that they won’t be happy with the outcome of genocide. If sanctions don’t work, America cannot be hesitant to launch full throttle attacks nd utterly destroy them. In the first Gulf War, the United States did this, and was successful. Today in Iraq, we’ve launched half hearted attacks that haven’t resulted in victory.
The same logic is in place in having a strong military to discourage war for our enemies. When people know they will fail, they are far less likely to act. Likewise, as History. com stated, “No country had interest in Rwanda, that’s why nothing was done. ” Although the essence of this statement is true, a more accurate one would note that no country thought they had interest. When the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) revolted against the Sudanese government for their treatment of non-Arabs, the government responded in forming militias to kill thousands of innocent people.
The actions of the US and a select few other countries determine whether or not the world permits acts of violence to this scale. As a whole, It is easy for one to say they condemn genocide, but if punished, society can perish genocide. Those opposed would assert that an America first viewpoint is principal, and wouldn’t allow for interventions on genocides. Benjamin Valentino, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, argues that using military orce is highly expensive, not to mention ineffective.
He states that UN international peacekeepers were attendant in some of the most horrific times of the Rwandan and Darfur genocides. However, one must be aware that the UN “international peacekeepers” like the ones used in the Darfur and Rwandan genocides can be classified as half hearted efforts. Relentless military attacks are needed to eliminate enemies. In that case, their military power will be decimated. Peacekeeping missions mean good, but result in angering enemies; even more, risks lives of the troops. Additionally, money is profoundly insignificant to human life.
Although we can profit or save money at the moment through leaving the problem on the shoulders of others, one must note that America can prioritize their needs while assisting others. As a whole, diminishing evolving and existing genocides is a crucial endeavor for the US. , not just for the sake the victims, but for the benefit of ourselves too. The importance of American intervention is not permitting the continuation of the lives taken extending to beyond tragic amounts, bettering the international image of our country, and making evil aware of the suffering they will face if perpetrating genocide.