By Hayley Lucas

Almost seven years after the conflict began, the genocide in Darfur continues to be one of the leading humanitarian crises in the world. After the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the international community claimed that “never again” would it sit idly by and watch a people be slaughtered. Yet here we are, fifteen years later, stuck at the road blocks of definitions and technicalities. Darfur was the first international situation to spark my interest in human rights. I was fourteen years old, and I naively thought that the international community had a vested interest in protecting fundamental human rights. After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims so eloquently that its member states should respect and uphold these rights.

Over the last seven years, I have become increasingly pessimistic about the shortcomings of the international system. The United Nations protects sovereignty, not rights. Developed countries are more interested in investing in developing states than actually aiding them. The most evident failure of the international system, however, has been the United States government’s lack of interest in protecting human rights. The government supported “Responsibility to Protect,” a document claiming that governments have a responsibility to intervene in states whose governments abuse the rights of their people. As far as I can tell, however, this has only been used to justify the War in Iraq, which served more economic and security interests than human rights ones.

On October 19, the United States picked itself up, and, in a single speech, Hillary Clinton delivered the words I had long hoped I would hear. She called the events in Darfur “dire human consequences of genocide” and declared that the Obama administration plans to bring “an end to conflict, gross human rights abuses, war crimes and genocide”. Many organizations have made this same claim, but Clinton’s speech differs from others in its detailing of initiatives the Obama administration is taking to ensure that the violence comes to an end in Sudan. The government has planned a three step solution including the “implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement that results in a united and peaceful Sudan in 2011 or an orderly path towards two separate and viable states at peace with each other,” the aforementioned end to human rights abuses and, the most controversial plan, “incentives and disincentives…based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground”.

Many human rights advocacy groups and members of the international community object to the idea of offering the Sudanese government incentives. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Al Bashir, the president of Sudan. Why offer him any incentives after he has supported such mass atrocities?

While I strongly condemn Al Bashir’s actions and highly doubt his ability to lead a nation, I believe that the Obama administration has made an important move towards peace in Sudan by offering incentives for the cessation of violence. Without incentives, the status quo will remain. International pressure, African Union peacekeeping intervention, and even an arrest warrant for Al Bashir have not deterred the government from continuing to support the genocide. It is also important to note that the plan includes disincentives as well. The Sudanese government will be punished if it continues on its current path of destruction.

Perhaps I am overly idealistic, but I strongly believe that this change in the US foreign policy towards the genocide in Sudan will bring about change. The United States must now pick up the pieces after the Bush administration disregarded human rights for the sake of the “War on Terror.” A commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur is actually a renewed commitment to the protection of human rights. An end to such a horrendous event as the genocide in Darfur, which has claimed the lives of 300,000 people and left countless others displaced from their homes, would send a message to the international community that they cannot hide behind the veil of national sovereignty in order to abuse the rights of their people.

Lucas, a sophomore undecided major, can be reached at hlucas@haverford.edu.

Related articles

• Darfur: Another Ideological Approach
• Rocking Against Genocide
• Mawrtyrs Organize to Protest China, Darfur
• Bi-Co Group Raises Awareness About Sudan
• Alum Addresses Darfur’s History
• “Never Again” Means Act Now in Darfur
• A Call to America:
• GAC Promotes Awareness at HC
• BMC Activists Go To DC
• U.N. Human Rights Council Is a Failure