Comments on: Will the Obama Administration Basically Ignore Darfur?

By: Charles Lim

Charles Lim — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:52:44 +0000

The foreign policy of the Clinton Administration can largely been seen as an aberration from traditional American foreign policy, thus its policies cannot be cited as examples of what America can or what they should do. Mandelbaum has argued that Clinton’s foreign policies were “intended to promote American values” whereas “historically the foreign policy of the United States has cented on American interests”. Although I would like to see America intervene and stop the genocide, it’s possible that Obama’s administration is simply reverting its foreign policies to be in line with what America’s foreign policy has been all along. It’s hard when people criticize you for overextension while the other side criticizes you for inaction. I’d like to see other states step up to the plate .I’m tired of the constant pointing of the finger at the United States when things in the world go wrong. Yes, we have set ourselves up to be the beacon of freedom and democracy, however, idly standing by and waiting for the US to act is wrong too.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:20:12 +0000

Yes, people killing their own people is *rarely* something the U.S. is willing to handle (“handle” is a euphemism for “militarily strike;” obviously that’s our only recourse when we’re interested in stopping violence elsewhere). But my point is that we *will* intervene occasionally – we did so in both Kosovo and Somalia.

Your point about Baha’is is fair. However that was a hypothetical. I’m making a broader point. Why did we intervene in Kosovo, why did we intervene in Somalia? The situations in these countries did not pose a threat to us or our way of life, as you seem to argue is almost always the case when people elsewhere in the world are killing their own people. It doesn’t affect us, thus we don’t care. But even when these situations don’t directly affect our well-being, we still find incentive for intervention, as was the case with both Kosovo and Somalia.

We thought we could instill some semblance of governance in Somalia. We failed. The West (in the form of NATO) seemed to feel an obligation to the Balkans. Again, we kinda failed. So perhaps our current non-intervention policy is partly a consequence of learning from past mistakes. When violence and mass murder don’t directly threaten us, let’s leave it alone. Or perhaps we’re just selectively intervening. But why, and at what cost?

By: Austan Mogharabi

Austan Mogharabi — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:10:20 +0000

I wish I agreed with you that the U.S. would do something if Iran started killing mass numbers of Baha’is. Unfortunately, I think the incentives would be to pass resolutions in the House and Senate condemning Iran and calling on the U.N. to do the same.

People killing their own people is rarely something the U.S. is willing to “handle” – especially when it doesn’t destabilize anything. Plus, what does “handle” mean? Short of military intervention, can we really stop Bashir?

So yeah, killing Baha’is in Iran wouldn’t destabilize Iran. It would just result in a lot of people being dead. Note that we’re “allowing” (whatever that means) Iranians to train and kill Iraqi and American security forces without doing anything. You think we’d be more belligerent for Baha’is?