Quote:
Originally posted by Azred:
quote:
Originally posted by Stratos:
As for Sudan, how are you gonna stop the killings there? Thwarting the goverment? Democracy building in the Middle East is a bumpy road indeed, but it would be even worst in Africa. The risk of running in without a plan is that you would just be turning the tables around, the formerly oppressed would take revenge on their former oppressor. If you go in and interfer with such deep rooted conflicts such as those in Africa, you're really open Pandora's box, and you should be pretty darn sure you know what you're doing. An oppressive regime like that one in Sudan is just the top of an iceberg. Underneath you have you have religious and ethnical conflicts that run deep.
The ideal would be if the Africans solved their problems on their own. The AU (African Union) is trying to do exactly this as we speak (or type).
|
Is it better to do nothing, then? Let them starve and kill each other until no one is left? Would it be worse to intervene or sit by and watch?
I have wrestled with this question, myself. I have stated before, both off-line and here, that in various situations we should all walk away and let two sides of a conflict settle it themselves. Although there is much wisdom in this decision which results in people being able to decide for themselves how much they wish to fight or resolve conflict, that still means we turn our back on wrongs being committed.
On the other hand, getting involved might not necessarily solve the situation; take Vietnam (for America) and Afghanistan (for Russia). These modern examples show that involvement by a superpower can result in nothing except a body count. Nevertheless, I doubt anyone would agree that becoming involved in WWII was a bad decision despite high casualties.
I finally decided that involvement was the lesser of two evils. Better to try and solve a situation than remain passive and allow it to continue. If this means sending troops into any situation to try and enforce enough peace to allow diplomacy to find a long-term solution then so be it. Eventually, factions will realize that if they fight then troops will come in and force an end to conflict, so they might as well go straight to the table and talk. [/QB][/QUOTE]I'm not against some form of intervention myself, in the case of Sudan I would regard it is necessary, but I would only support a military one if we had a clear idea about how to do it and what results to expect. We could always go in the point a gun at everyone, but unless we have a good idea on how to solve the conflict, we wont get anywhere. We can't stay there forever, and they would just continue their fighting after we left.
I've gotten the impression from media that UN, EU and USA have intentionally stepped back to allow the African Union a chance to prove itself. It's their turf. I recently read an article saying that they might increase the small military force they have in Sudan from around 300 to something like 1500. I have no idea exactly what they are doing there, though.