Literature: “Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide” by Gerard Prunier

Summary of the Case

The article ‘Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide’ by Gerard Prunier gives a critical view of the war that has been taking place in Darfur. According to this article, this war has continued for a long time, and it would be right to consider it genocide. Many innocent lives have been lost, and many have been rendered homeless. However, Prunier says that this war has been going on due to lack of action from the relevant world powers.

This scholar appreciates that colonization is a rotten thing that should be opposed in the contemporary world. However, he also appreciates the fact that too much liberalism can also be harmful.

The United States is the only remaining superpower in the world. It has used this position in various ways to demonstrate that respect for humanity is important. This scholar observes that in Iraq, the United States attacked Saddam Hussein’s forces because the American government believed that this government was oppressing the innocent citizens of this country.

If this government felt that this move was justified, then this scholar wonders what the explanation would be for their silence on the atrocities taking place in Darfur. This scholar poses this question because he believes that the simplest and shortest way to end this genocide in Darfur will be to send the United Nations’ troops to this region.

Prunier believes that if it was justified to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, then the West is self-centered by taking no actions to stop the genocide in Darfur. The need for their intervention is needed more in this region than it was needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Response to the Case

The article given by Gerard Prunier raises some serious questions about the West. In response to the report by Prunier, I believe that the West is using double standards when addressing issues of foreign relations. For instance, the decision to send troops to Iraq never took long.

The same case took place when it came to dealing with Afghanistan’s case. As Prunier says, at one moment, the West must be held to account for their omission or commission error. If they were justified to invade the two Arab countries as a way of restoring peace and protecting humanity in this region, then they should be held responsible for omission error because they failed to do the same in Darfur.

On the other hand, I believe that if they are justified to watch the massacre in Darfur from a distance and do nothing about it because Sudan is a sovereign state, then they should be held accountable for their invasion of the two Arab countries. These two different approaches show how the imperialists base their foreign policies on what benefits them. They do not care about what happens to others.

I also agree with Prunier on the argument that too much liberalism is dangerous. Since colonization is bad, the world powers should not be spectators when sovereign states fail to protect their citizens. This was demonstrated during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. This war took less than a month, but the impact was devastating. About 3 million people died in this genocide. This could have been avoided if the imperialists had made a move to save the situation.

Although I strongly support some of the sentiments of this scholar, I believe that some issues were ignored by Prunier in his report. It is true that colonialism is bad in the current society. Any form of oppression should not be tolerated whether it comes from internal agents or the international community. This makes the neocolonialism a bad practice, as Prunier says. However, he forgets the actions taken by the East. Actions of Russia and China are worse.

The East has considered the East as imperialists who meddle in the internal affairs of other nations across the world because they have the military and financial might. They consider their foreign policies of non-interference as the best policy that should be taken by powerful nations. However, this is hypocrisy of the highest order. Prunier forgot that the East had been constantly accused of arming the rebels in those unstable areas as Darfur, Congo and even in Rwanda.

They claim not to interfere while in a real sense, they are the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity. When they arm the rebels, the majority of those who will be killed by the rebels are the innocent citizens who are unable to protect themselves. After creating an enabling environment for war, the East would claim that their foreign policy is non-interference on the activities of other nations.

This is the worst approach that any of the powerful nations can take. This means that even though the West has been considered as imperialists who are self-centered, they have been genuine whenever they decide to take actions. This is different from the actions taken by the East pretend to be neutral while in a real sense, they fuel violence by supporting rebels.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *