POLS 250 Paper, Compiled

POLS 250 Paper, Compiled - Austin, Mathews, Rogers, Smith...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Austin, Mathews, Rogers, Smith and White 1 Introduction Abstract The genocide in Darfur and the problems of Sudan’s authoritarianism have exceeded what many scholars call “African problems.” Sudan serves as a micro chasm of everything wrong on the African continent—with the international community, namely the United Nations, playing political games while people are mass murdered and President Omar al-Bashir consolidates power. International law and norms have again been violated, even after President George W. Bush declared that genocides, such as that in Rwanda, would not happen during his administration. 1 Thesis Statement One should view Sudan as a case study in failure of the “good government” idea, which is impossible under the current ethnic, political and social structure in the country. Thus, we look at the Sudanese situation in four subsections: the Darfur genocide, international response to Darfur and Sudan, the government of Sudan and al-Bashir and interest group response to the Darfur situation. “Never Again” Happens Again 2 Darfur: The Roots of Genocide In Darfur, a region of western Sudan about the size of Texas, the historically-rooted violence between African and Arab communities has been developing into an indolent genocide 1 “Not on my watch" was written by Bush in the margin of a report on President Bill Clinton's response to the 1994 genocide that took 800,000 lives in Rwanda. 2 “Never Again” refers to the rallying term used after the Holocaust. It is supposedly a rallying cry of world powers to stand against genocide and extreme human rights violations. Of course, the cry was ignored in Rwanda and the situation is similar for Darfur. The Darfurian genocide stands to be “good-intentioned” to absolution—meaning that countries, IGOs and NGOs seek to help yet actually exacerbate the problem.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Austin, Mathews, Rogers, Smith and White 2 since early 2003. The modern conflict differs from past encounters predominantly due to distinct racial and ethnic implications. Although ethnic disputes and inequalities have perpetually divided African and Arab populations, the chasm is widening further. The conflict in Darfur aligns with the overall precedent of cultural disproportions in Sudan. The Arab subpopulation in Darfur is accountable for the recent devastation in the area, committing atrocious acts of brutality against the indigenous African people. The term Janjaweed is used to describe these individuals, an Arabic colloquium meaning a man with a gun on horseback (Koerner “Who are the Janjaweed?”). The deliberate and systematic deracination and eradication is focused categorically on the non-Arab Fur, Masaalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups (Vehnamaki 3). These cruelties have caused Darfur to become a central topic of international attention due to human rights violations. Modern conflict stems from rebel groups—including the Sudan Liberation Movement
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 13

POLS 250 Paper, Compiled - Austin, Mathews, Rogers, Smith...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online