By Craig P. Dixon, southcoast247.com correspondent Social Commentary 91
December 27th, 2006
For the past year or so, I kept getting these emails telling me to "Save
Darfur". Then "Save Darfur" bulletins popped up on Myspace. I'd heard of
Darfur in the news. Heard of the genocide taking place there.
But 90 percent or so of the people I've asked in recent weeks had no clue of
the Darfur conflict. What is Darfur?
Darfur, Sudan, is the name of a place that's become synonymous with
genocide. The conflict there has killed some 400,000 people over the past 3
years, made 2 million people refugees and 3.5 million entirely reliant on
international aid to survive. If you'd like to know more about Darfur, you
can check out the Save Darfur website.
Obviously, this is a great human tragedy, and an international force
(including American peacekeepers) should be organized to ebb the genocide.
But to those who call upon the US military to intervene in Sudan, and blame
the US government for not doing more to save Darfur, I say the US has bigger
problems to deal with.
Still believe Darfur is big on the collective American mind? Alright. Ask a
few people about Darfur. Based upon the blank faces and negative answers one
receives, one may surmise: Saving Darfur isn't a great concern to most
Americans. Unlike Iraq (an issue of our own doing), Darfur is a Sudanese
problem. An African problem. At most, an issue for the United Nations to
rectify.
Saving Darfur just isn't on my things to do list. I'd rather Save Milwaukee.
Or Detroit. Or New Orleans. Hell, a monstrous tsunami hits Asia and we can
get resources and manpower to the region speedily, but a hurricane hits the
Gulf Coast and we can't take care of our own citizens in an expeditious
manner?
Over the past century, the US has spent far too much time meddling in the
affairs of other countries. We've become known as "the world's policeman".
And what has the term gotten us? Foreign backlash and uproar when we stay
out of foreign conflicts. And backlash and uproar when we enter the fray.
Which leads us to a Catch-22, damned if you do or don't, situation. But I
would rather the US be hated for staying out of foreign issues, than reviled
for getting involved. This would force either a) the country/countries
involved to solve their own problems, rather than relying on the US to do it
for them, or b) make the international community (i.e. the terribly flawed
and slow to react UN) get involved in a more timely manner.
Military intervention says nothing of the financial burden shouldered by the
American taxpayer by dumping billions of dollars into foreign problems.
Billions of dollars of resources we cannot, or do not, keep track of.
Who's to know what really happens with foreign aid? On Christmas Day,
Washington admitted it couldn't account for claims of success in the
3-year-old, 15 billion dollar African AIDS program. Just where has the money
gone?
Who knows.
The US ought to focus on infrastructural problems at home, than issues
abroad. Rather than using the 20th century carrot/stick idea of reward and
punishment in the foreign sphere, we should lead by example at home. We
could start by enforcing serious pollution regulations and gas mileage
requirements, as well as rewarding automobile makers for developing
alternative fuel vehicles, in an effort to slow global warming. Instead of
spending 15 billion dollars on AIDS in Africa, we could use that money
preventing and fighting AIDS at home. We could stop spending billions on
foreign conflicts and rescind aid to undeserving nations, then use those
finances to strengthen weakened, embattled law enforcement communities on
American soil (like Milwaukee and Detroit), and provide health insurance to
every American citizen.
Currently, we cannot keep track of where money is going at home, never mind
abroad. Until accountability measures are competent and in order at home, we
shouldn't think of tossing billions of dollars elsewhere.
These aren't all new ideas. George Washington, arguably our most selfless,
wisest leader, warned his fledgling nation of getting involved in foreign
affairs. Even today, at an adolescent 230 years old, we would be wise to
follow this advice.
For the past year or so, I kept getting these emails telling me to "Save
Darfur". Then "Save Darfur" bulletins popped up on Myspace. I'd heard of
Darfur in the news. Heard of the genocide taking place there.
But 90 percent or so of the people I've asked in recent weeks had no clue of
the Darfur conflict. What is Darfur?
