What should we be doing?

When dealing with Genocide why are we so reluctant to take action even when alternative solutions appear to be failing miserably. An article on CNN.com from Sunday showed us that what the world needs is not peace talks but action. According to the AU envoy, "the process leading to negotiations has begun," and yet how is this possibly going to effect change if the first scheduled "peace talk" does not enjoy the presence of the rebel leaders? UN mediator Jan Eliasson claims that "the real substantial negotiations will start when the parties are prepared," and yet how can we guarantee that rebel groups will ever be "prepared," more importantly what are we doing in the meantime so that when they fail to show up for another "peace talk" action is taken?

Punishments needed to set an example

Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) was the sight of countless acts of abuse, rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners by the US military. The amplitude of these events was magnified to the world do to a massive number of pictures and videos. Last year reports surfaced that the authority to commit such acts had come from high up. In November 2006, the former US Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, in-charge of Abu Ghraib prison, told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Donald Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation. How can we make sure that these events don’t happen again? The first thing that should have happened is recognition that these acts were too obscene to commit. A line was crossed and someone needed to step up and say something. Another step that needs to be taken is harsher punishment for those involved. Very few soldiers were punished for these acts and no high up powers were held accountable. The leaders should be punished not only to set an example, but because it is morally right.

The Killing Fields: His Version

We had a speaker on campus who was a survivor of the killing fields. He talked to us about his experiences when he was there and how he got through the years and the totalitarian rule of the Khmer Rouge.

He started off the session with a brief summary of the events that led to the uprising of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. Then, he followed up by sharing his experiences: how he would go to school always having the fear that American B-52 bombers might bomb his part of town, how he had the fear that he would not see his parents after returning from school. After the Khmer Rouge got power, he was taken to a concentration camp, and he described the long walks as horrible and too much for anyone to comprehend. Patients were taken out of their beds and made to walk, children died on the road, women gave birth in the middle of the road. And when they finally reached the concentration camps, they were forced into labour and given only a handful of rice daily. Most people died there because of malnutrition. But, the main reason for death was the Khmer Rouge troops. They killed because they didn’t like the person, or because the person was working slow. They had total power there and as a consequence,the genocide went on for 4 years.

The shocking thing I found out from his talk was that the genocide quelled because the North Vietnamese came into Cambodia and fought against the Khmer Rouge. The world had known of this genocide, which had been going on for four years and the whole world simply ignored it. The U.N. had vowed “never again” to any genocide. Still, they did nothing.

When the speaker finally fled from the concentration camp and reached neighboring Thailand, he saw signs of the international community in the form of UNHCR camps.

If the UN had taken quick action to stop the genocide, it would definitely had been stopped. The Cambodian genocide can be taken as a correlation to the Darfur genocide going on right now, in our time. The international community did not give its full attention to Cambodia, so countless lives were lost from the human society. In the present context, we all are aware of the genocide in Darfur. Even if the Sudanese government does not want negotiations to end the genocide, every effort, every resource should be utilized to save lives there no matter what, even if it means deploying the UN troops and sweeping out the current inhumane Sudanese government.

Terrorism: the means to a political ends

While to most Americans, the anniversary of September 11th is a time for remembrance and charity. For George Bush and the White House, it is a day of justification: justification of the war in Iraq, justification for the deficit the country has been plunged into funding the war, and justification for all of the laws which have restricted civil liberties in the past years (such as the patriot act).


This should be a time of grieving and support. Rather than giving help to those in need, and taking a hand in the lives of our nations people, the government would rather use the events of 9/11 to further its stake in the middle east, to draw more support for its war mongering, and to concoct more justifications for why its treating its own citizens as enemies.

The Stanford prison experiment and Abu Ghraib

A parallel can be drawn between the Stanford Prison Experiment and the issue of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The Stanford Prison Experiment shows that in isolated constitutions, the ones in charge show their dominance over the captives. This process can lead to brutal and often inhumane acts being perpetrated on the captives.

The Stanford Prison experiment shows evidence of this. The guards show their superiority by forcing the prisoners to do push ups, by throwing them in isolation bins, and even by setting up a reward system in which, the most compliant person got to sleep on a proper bed. All these acts convey to the prisoners that they are inferior. These acts give the guards the feeling and the ego that they are definitely in control and dominant over the prisoners.

Basically, in Abu Ghraib, what the soldiers were doing, was showing their dominance and superiority over the prisoners. The notion that they were in control gave them the power and will to commit the horrific acts. One more factor that helped to aggravate the situation was the agreement of Donald Rumsfeld. He gave permission to use harsh interrogation techniques in the prison. I believe that the lack of fear of consequence and the necessity to portray their dominance led to the horrific acts at Abu Ghraib prison.

Forgotten the Golden Rule?

“While this is still the right position, it is not the right time.”
This is what a conservative Republican representative Mike Pence from Indiana said regarding the House vote for the use of the word ‘genocide’. Pence’s statement not only surprised me, but also made me frustrated; how can someone say that it is right, but not allow it to be done? Pence refers to the announcement that Turkey made, which says that Turkey will stop assisting the United States to transport war equipment and cargo to Iraq. Moreover, George W. Bush gave a warning to the House to approve the use of the term genocide. According to the article in which Mr. Pence made his statement, approximately 70 percent of all air cargo, and around 30 percent of fuel sent to Iraq goes through Turkey. Hence, it is clear that Turkey is important for the United States in terms of military. However, personally I still believe that it is important that the U.S recognizes the genocide, regardless of Turkey’s opinion or announcements. Why would the U.S. not want to call the acts of 1910’s genocide if the only opposing aspect is that Turkey is a military ally with the U.S? I find it absurd that the U.S. can believe in something, in this case referring to the acts as genocide, but still not do it because of military benefits. Didn’t the Golden Rule go

”Treat others as you would like to be treated?”

Effectiveness of Current Information

It is a commonly accepted fact that Darfur is still a region plagued by violence, death, and genocide, so why is the only current information on the Genocide about American Soldiers who have died as a result of the conflict. On websites like BBC NEWS, information about the Janjaweed and political aspect of the genocide is several years old, PBS is more current, including articles on their website that is only slightly over a year and half old. If we are trying to bring about a generation that works for change, how are we supposed to do this when we do not have access to current information and are unable to educate ourselves?