Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Deferments for Darfur?

Raj Purohit and Howard Salter of the Baltimore Sun call on President Obama to intervene with the conflict in Darfur.
By doing so, Mr. Obama would address a serious human rights crisis at the dawn of his presidency while also sending a clear signal that the U.S. is ready to once again lead by example. The implementation of a peace agreement would likely include:

•A long-term U.N. peacekeeping group in the region.
•Complete demilitarization of the militia groups.
•Governance concessions by the Sudanese central authorities.
•Transfer of two other alleged war criminals - former Minister of State for the Interior Ahmed Haroun and janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb - to the ICC.

Bold leadership and action would mark a significant break from the position of President Obama's predecessor. While President George W. Bush called the killings in Darfur "genocide," his administration failed to take action to stop the violence. Human rights activists and the millions of Americans who have risen up to demand an end to the killing in Darfur have high hopes that the Obama administration will act differently.
OYE Comment: "Bold leadership and action" are indeed characteristics necessary to help end the killing in Darfur. What is also necessary are Servicemen that will likely be involved in combat. We asked Mr. Purohit and Mr. Salter if they've ever worn a uniform or if they've encouraged their eligible-to-serve peers/family members to enlist, and, just like the 95% of the Young Republicans we've contacted over the years, we did not receive a response.



At 21 February, 2009 15:08, Blogger Zhann said...

I hate to sound cynacle, but the odds of the US entering Darfur anytime soon are quite low. There is no oil, or anything of much wealth, in Darfur.


Post a Comment

<< Home