who is responsible?
October 22, 2009
Who is responsible for mediating small conflicts? Does international policy matter to a foot soldier on the ground, or should there be other means of negotiation?
It would be easily assumed that small conflicts should be mediated within the confines of those being directly affected. Small conflicts typically have extreme consequences for those victimized. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is considered to be a small conflict. The parties involved are exclusively citizens of the Congo, the perpetrators and victims both reside in the same country. The conflict in Burma is also a conflict that has arisen amongst the people of Burma. Small conflicts have large consequences for those involved. It is expected that the governments and the people of such places as the Congo would intervene and prevent small conflicts. If they do not the neighboring countries where small conflict is occurring should help mediate and alleviate the situation.
If the conflict is influenced by the government and the government is the perpetrator of the violence, then who is responsible for mediation? Should other nations intervene? When do other nations feel it is necessary to intervene?
It is important to take into accountant all aspects of the conflicts to determine who should step in and mediate. The Holocaust was not a small conflict by any means but it was a conflict small and in the distance to the United States. It was not until the well being of the United States was threatened did the country step in and attempt to end the brutality of Hitler’s regime. The United States role was to defend them self and act accordingly to benefit its own well being, which to some extent is understandable. If countries involved them self in all conflicts economies would plunge further into debt and wars or interventions would have no end in sight. Nations feel the desire for intervention and mediation when they stand to gain or sustain.
Although the idea of sustaining and gaining is easily understood to what extent should fellow countries allow conflict to continue within other countries or between smaller countries? After the Holocaust and the end of World War II, nations like the United States reiterate the phrase “never again”. Which implies the prevention of genocide will be on the top of all developed countries agendas, but that certainly is not the case. The occurrences in Darfur have been deemed genocide by the United States but not by the United Nations. The fact that the United States has declared Darfur genocide has not caused it to intervene. Darfur is somewhat of a larger conflict compared to that of Burma but nonetheless it is internal and in one centralized area. Darfur is also a prime example of when a conflict cannot be mediated by the government for they fight along side the Jangaweed against the people of Darfur.
A global community should mediate small conflicts. Small conflicts are conflicts that spread violence and destroy the foundations of a stable and fair government. The United Nations does not intervene physically until they can stabilize themselves without military protection. Their typical route to mediation is through policy making which often does not prevent conflict. When speaking of the situation in Burma an opposition sympathizer; “The UN is no good. All they do is talk, and when they come here they are focused on dealing with the regime [rather] than with fighting for democracy” (Gopal 2).
Does the policy imposed by the UN truly carry weight on the soldiers executing war tactics on the ground in such places as Burma? If it did the acts of the militias in the Congo and the regime in Burma would not use rape as a weapon, and would not violate the rights of the people of these countries as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions. These policies are enforced on a larger scale to some extent. If the United Nations denies that Darfur is genocide nothing will be done to prevent this genocide or punish the perpetrators. International policy does not play a large role in preventing small or internal conflicts. To a young man in the Congo no older then 19 years old who is fighting for a meal a policy written by men in suits from developed nations does not play a role in his decision making. The international community cannot mediate through written documents. Even though this is true they can also not mediate through force or just military presence.
The conflict in the Afghanistan is the polar opposite of a small conflict. The United States as of February 2009 has increased its military presence by the thousands and an exit from Afghanistan by the U.S. military is most likely in the distant future. The war efforts seem to have been to defeat the Taliban and “liberate the women of Iraq”. The first aspect may be accomplished but liberating women does not come from defeating the Taliban or writing a policy. Women can only be empowered or liberated through education and employment “to claim political legitimacy and negotiate their [own] rights” (Ahmed-Ghosh 33). If the United States does not extensively establish security for these women their military presence will provide them with nothing.
A large effort must be made by other countries to work for peace and stability. This does not imply a military presence but combined efforts amongst military tactics, enforced policy, and security for the victims of these small conflicts. The United Nations must instill their policies and not just expect them to be followed by individual’s who are fighting or by those victims who do not know their rights granted by international policy. Education and economic stability is the only way to prevent and end conflicts on all scales.
These two following videos discuss the situation in Darfur. The first video includes comments by Nancy Pelosi. She notes that Darfur is a genocide and it should be on the U.S. agenda to intervene. The second video I found most interest in. It highlights the situation in Darfur through the perspective of a marine who observed the activity in Darfur first hand and recorded it with his camera. This marine saw first hand the government and the Janjaweed working together. He also observes that the situation greatly affects the women and children of the Sudan.
