Hot Topic
The United Nations (UN) estimates that the conflict has left as many as 450,000 dead from violence and disease yet Sudan's government claims that over 9,000 people have been killed, although this figure is seen as counterfactual. At what number does it become our problem? What do you think we should do?
Use Our Influence
Submitted by MFuture Voter, age 15
The situation in Darfur, Sudan has been going on now for four years. It has been internationally recognized as genocide. Some sources put the number of people killed at 200,000 and others as high as 400,000. 2,500,000 have been displaced. So, as the richest, most influential country in the world, what is the United States’ responsibility?
The U.S. is already exporting a large amount of manpower and dollars to Iraq which has plunged it into financial debt. Clearly the U.S. cannot send troops to Darfur. Such an action would be highly criticized by the international community and would involve the U.S. in a situation it cannot sustain with either money or troops. But the United States still has great influence in the world and could put diplomatic pressure on the Sudanese and other governments.
Over the years, the United States has promoted itself as wanting to help others while still turning a blind eye to situations such as the Rwandan genocide, claiming to not know what was really going on. But the whole world knows about Darfur. The United States simply is not making it a priority. As the country with the strongest economy, strongest military, most money, and the most power, others should be able to count on the U.S. to do what is right and help out when they are really needed.
Although Sudan does not have a direct impact on the United States, they are still a member of the international community which makes not only the U.S. but the whole world morally obligated to help the people of Darfur. The figures don’t lie. The number of people killed is too large and will only continue to grow larger. The United States has the power to help bring about a peaceful solution to the genocide in Darfur. It only has to choose to do so.
History Says No:
Submitted by David Smith, age 15
Does the U.S. have a moral responsibility to designate resources to the crisis in Dafur?
In some ways, yes. But the history facts say no. The current conflict in Darfur is complex, caused by a host of political, social, economic and environmental problems. The result is a humanitarian crisis affecting millions of people (1)
The Darfur conflict erupted in early 2003. Fighting among various factions has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced more than 2 million, most escaping to larger towns where they stay in camps for "internally displaced people," and some crossing the border into Chad, where they live in refugee camps, straining local resources. Attacks on civilians during the conflict have been brutal and include burning homes, killing and rape.
Most peoples opinions would be to say yes, the U.S. does have the moral responsibilities to give aid to the people in Dafur. But history says no. Look at the war on terrorism. The U.S. felt a moral responsibility to step in and correct the situation. We are now in the beginning of a New Year that will make the time total almost 7 years. And in that 7 years, has the U.S. made any major improvements? To this question we can say yes. We have changed the entire system of government, the way people live (from good to worse), the economy of the nations and the way we as Americans view the Iranians (not very good). And we have spent million, billions, trillions of dollars on the war. Putting the U.S. in dept until our dying days.
So to answer the question, no, the U.S. does not have a moral responsibility to give aid to Dafur. The U.S. does not have the resources needed to give the aid the Dafur needs so desperately. Let another country that has the resources, who has the people and who has the money. Dafur will benefit from someone else, from another country that has the power and the resources to give the aid. So in my opinion, to the U.S. is to let some other country help Dafur.