In 2003, the escalation of conflict in Darfur has been one of the biggest humanitarian crises of the twenty-first century. The United Nations did not call it genocide and sent only a limited number of mediators and United Nations personnel to Sudan. There were many conflicting reports on whether or not the conflict in Darfur was considered genocide. Due to established United Nations intervention protocols specifying rules of intervention by the United Nations members, the situation in Darfur did not meet those requirements hence the United Nation members are not allowed to intervene and protect civilians without the approval of the Sudanese government. The Genocide Convention of 1948 was designed to safeguard and protect civilians from genocide while the governing United Nations principles were designed to honor state sovereignty. However, they are contradictory and made it impossible for the United Nations to effectively protect civilians in war torn Darfur.
The Darfur crisis was the result of a civil war between the Sudanese government and ethnic black Africans. The crisis began in February 2003 when two major rebel groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army and Justice and Equality Movement, took up arms against the Janjaweed militia. The Janjaweed militia was backed by the Sudanese government.
[...] To better understand this scenario, one must know the guiding principles of the United Nations and the purpose of the Genocide Convention. The regulations governing the United Nation's involvement makes it impossible for the United Nations to intervene without the declaration of genocide. There are two guiding principles that the United Nations used to resolve issues. First, the United Nation has to respect a country's sovereignty- the right for the country's government to govern and resolve its own domestic issues (Faulve-Montojo 2010). [...]
[...] The role of peacekeepers was an issue when they were allowed into Sudan. The role of the United Nation peacekeepers is to present itself as a neutral party and de-escalate the conflict. In Darfur United Nations peacekeepers were augmented to 20,000 African Union troops and other support personnel (Snow 2010). The role of the peace keepers have been a political one in terms of respecting Sudan's sovereignty and enforcing ceasefires. The conflict in Darfur involves more personnel on the ground in order to de-escalate the fighting at the very least. [...]
[...] Options are Limited in Darfur." Points of View: Darfur (2009): 3. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web Nov Luban, David J. “Calling Genocide by its Rightful Lemkin's Word, Darfur, and the UN Report. Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol No Summer 2006; Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No Web. Pease, Kelly-Kate S. International Organizations New York: Pearson Snow, Donald M. Cases in International Relations New York: Pearson Education Inc 112-118. Print. [...]
[...] If this was the case, this would constitute as genocide. However, the United Nations Commission found evidence that the killing was a result of militia forces trying to steal land, crush opposition and/or create an example for other potential rebel groups by targeting villages suspected of supporting them. (Luban 2006) The commission concluded in its report that the acts of violence in Darfur amounted to crimes against humanity but not genocide (Luban 2006). Proving specific intent is very difficult and if specific intent for genocide cannot be proven by the United Nation's commission, then the appropriate United Nation's response to provide security for civilians and disarm responsible combatants is impossible. [...]
[...] Has a Moral Obligation to Intervene to Stop the Genocide in Darfur." Points of View: Darfur (2009): 2. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web Nov Hagan, John, Wenona Rymond-Richmond. DARFUR and the Crime of Genocide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (xvii). Print. Kramer, Otis, and Rosalind Montanez-Muhinda. "Counterpoint: U. S. [...]
using our reader.