New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Here’s his reason:

 I have made repeated efforts to encourage the Chinese government to use its unique influence to bring safety and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan. Although some progress has been made along the way, most notably, the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769, the situation in Darfur continues to worsen and the violence continues to accelerate.

…And I’m sure China really cares…

When it comes to politics, entertainers consistently demonstrate that they aren’t very bright. Then again I guess we shouln’t expect much from Spielberg who didn’t graduate film school until 2002, and most certainly did not study international relations. Normally, it takes a little more than the cries of celebrities to register any leverage on world superpowers. The point adds to what I have already said about the naivete of the “save Darfur” movement. Here is my first post on why “I don’t care about Darfur.”

I have more recently written another newspaper article elaborating on the impracticality of interventionalist Darfur policy. If you press the “continue reading” link at the bottom of the post you will be able to see it.

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 30% [?]

No. But they are two of Thomas Sowell’s “Random Thoughts”:

A recent study showed the median income of major corporate CEOs to be about $8 million a year. That’s less than a third of what Alex Rodriguez earns and less than one-thirtieth of what Oprah Winfrey makes. But no one is denouncing them for “greed.”

It is amazing how many people who want us to get out of Iraq want us to go into Darfur.

While I’ll leave readers to chew on those questions themselves, I have a couple of pithy comments on the issues.

First, Oprah and ARod are less likely to be denounced for “greed” because they are in the public eye and thus people feel a connection to them and to their success (because they watch them entertain and provide their riches by doing so). Executives on the other hand are assumed to be greedy and lazy men working in big offices. They are demonized, in part, because their work is enigmatic. While people make them rich by buying whatever they help produce over the course of the day, the process is anonymous and absent of any feeling of connection with the CEOs. And of course a lack of economic learnedness may also contribute to this antagonizing of Executives.

Leftists hate the war in Iraq because its rationale is “self-defense”; leftists love the idea of intervening in Darfur because its rationale is “altruism”.

Popularity: 16% [?]

It’s always nice being told that I’m heartless or don’t care about human life or some variation thereof because in that case I know that my arguments are effective enough to make some bleeding heart kick and scream. The latest episode is from Zach, NSP’s own author of liberal content:

While those without much regard for human life (perhaps Ryan’s post “Darfur: Why I Don’t Give a Damn” best summarizes the perspective of these individuals) continue to emphasize that Darfur is Sudan’s problem to handle, it seems as if the only way the bloodshed will stop is if an international force attempts to impede the progress of the janjaweed.

Simply dismissing my position as a disregard for human life represens a dull and trivial level of reasonin. I am against intervening in Darfur because I am against using government coercion at home to finance a massive international aid scheme that will probably fail in the end anyways. Quite simply the American taxpayer has no obligation to make sacrifices to anyone in Africa and they should not be compelled as if they do. As i have said before, if any individual believes that Darfur is worth it, they may donate anything of their own or even go over to Africa to fight against the Janjaweed themselves, however they have no right to force another American to sacrifice their property in one form or another for the cause, which is essentially what organizations like Save Darfur advocate–using the democratic process to force other people to finance a humanitarian effort.

As I have expounded, it is the job of the American government to protect the rights of those within the domain of the American government (aka within our borders); not every poor, hungry man, woman and child roaming the earth. If it was the responsibility of rich countries to take care of poor chaotic ones then they should not have their own governments–they should become part of ours–and they should pay taxes to us. As I see it, the third world and governments who shamelessly beg for our foreign aid are like the spoiled, 23-year-old college dropout son America never had. He lives in his parents house, partys hard, and always says he’s going to get a job but never does–simply he has been given all the resources to be successful but lacks the moral value and discipline to achieve it himself.

Likewise poor nations today live in a thriving global economy, of the like America never benefited from back when it was founded. For them, greater prosperity can be achieved with only minimal structural necessities, however they still fail to accept the prerequisites of free minds, free people, and free markets–and until they do, those countries will still be waking up at one in the afternoon with a hangover, a  strange girl in bed next to them, and no income.

Next is that just because the action currently being undertaken is by the UN does not mean that the American people are not assuming an irrational burden. The Bush administration promised one and one quarter billion dollars in funding for international organizations in 2007 and moreover the US funds 22% of the UN’s total budget–which is the maximum–as well as 25% of the UN Peacekeeping budget–which is also the maximum allowed. So, nevertheless, the American taxpayer finds himself coerced to pay for this initiative.

Moreover, I doubt that the resources being allocated to Darfur will actually be well spent. Quite simply if I really wanted something done about Darfur, I would not trust the UN to do it effectively, nor would I assume that a lazy occupation (aka “peacekeeping mission”) would stop the genocide in the long run. When you are faced with a society in as much disarray as in Sudan, and such a reckless government, and such a merciless militia group, a lousy UN Peacekeeping mission will not truly do the job. The only way that I coul foresee a peaceful end to the the matter is if the US invaded, dismantled the government as well as the Janjaweed (with greater force than is currently being employed in Iraq), and maintained an occupation for some time thereafter. Either way the reality is that most in the “save Darfur crowd” don’t appear to be rational enough to realize that the roots of the violence in Darfur run deep, that any effort to fix the problem will come at a severe cost, and finally that no person has the right to force any American to put his money or his life on the line for that cause.

I fear where all this is going. We heard more than a decade ago in Rwanda, “never again”. But around the same time we also saw what happens when we did intervene in third world instability. When two Black Hawk helicopters went down at the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia, 19 American soldiers were killed as well as dozens of soldiers from other nations in the occupation which persisted for two more years. I say never again to Somalia–never again to America sacrificing the interests of its individuals to every other humanitarian crisis around the world. Such a foreign policy is reckless and self-sacrificial and will doubtlessly drain America’s ability to prosper and support the advancement of human life for its own citizens in the future.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Despite wide disagreement throughout the world, and particularly in the United States, the UN has finally decided to help stop the bloodshed in Darfur. While those without much regard for human life (perhaps Ryan’s post “Darfur: Why I Don’t Give a Damn” best summarizes the perspective of these individuals) continue to emphasize that Darfur is Sudan’s problem to handle, it seems as if the only way the bloodshed will stop is if an international force attempts to impede the progress of the janjaweed. Years of lobbying from organizations like Save Darfur have drawn attention to the genocide. Progress on Capitol Hill has been slow, however, as many politicians believe Americans don’t have the military motives or capabilities to intervene in the African area.

Furthermore, some individuals see it as a violation of Sudan’s sovereignty. The recent UN action, with supplementary troops provided by the African Union, helps the country tame the rising problem. While the force may keep the peace, it’s still important to analyze why Darfur was possible and what can be done in the future to help prevent catastrophes of the similar degree.

Even though the UN’s activity is an encouraging step in the right direction for the conflict, experts say it could be months before the force is capable of completely stopping the violence in the country. The size of the force is another good sign, however, as UN troops stationed in Rwanda during that country’s genocide did little to stop the ensuing massacres.

Cooperation from the central government in Khartoum is critical as the date for deployment approaches. Frequently cited as the source of weapons and air support, Sudan’s government may not be capable of quelling unrest post-peace. When the UN pulls out, it’s important to stabilize the government as well. While “nation building” hasn’t turned out so well in the past and the UN force is by no means an invading force, this should give the world an opportunity to finally make a historically unstable country a model of peace for the rest of Africa. Civil wars in Congo and infighting elsewhere within the continent mean Africa still leaves much to desire before it’s an attractive option for ecnomic enrichment.

Following the peace, the UN should work hand-in-hand with the Sudanese government to ensure that such a blatant violation of human rights does not occur again.  Organizations like Save Darfur that once fought for a peacekeeping force to be stationed in Darfur should now shift their attention to overseeing the operation and the continuation of genocide prevention in Darfur and the rest of Africa.  The UN and the world have finally taken a step in the right direction, but there remains a marathon to run before Darfur is at peace.

Popularity: 14% [?]

It’s a change.  Obama’s campaign has been plagued by indecision and inexperience.  His opponents play up the short period of time he’s been in the US Senate, while others note that he’s almost just a “pretty face.”  One of today’s top news stories, however, sees Obama fighting for something he believes in-withdrawal from Iraq.  His comments seem to be a bit more harsh than is necessary, incorporating a bit on genocide as well. 

the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and [that] preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

Obama’s brought up another issue that may make a bit of an impact on his campaign.  Darfur, an ever increasing problem, is central to the success of some aspects of Democratic campaigns.  The Save Darfur movement, constantly growing, may help to decide who wins the Democratic nomination.  Obama’s comments may alienate this section of his liberal base.

The harsh stance on Iraq-get out immediately and stay out-may resonate with anti-war Republicans.  Luckily, Obama hasn’t flip-flopped on this stance and seems to stand strong with Hillary Clinton against a prolonged American presence in Iraq.  Leaving isn’t simple, and it requires an extensive plan, which, Obama will hopefully incorporate into his platform. 

His comments pertaining to genocide may rattle some liberals, but the Iraq withdrawal strategy is almost a catch-all, as the majority of the Democratic nominees share his opinions.  Although his stances seem to alienate key sectors of the Democratic base, the future for Obama must be rife with decisions and strong policy stances in order to lead him to success in 2008 and beyond.

Popularity: 22% [?]

There are so many reasons I could care less about Darfur and there are so many problems with the logic of the “save Darfur crowd” that it’s hard for me to find a place to begin. But let me essentially say that I don’t care because the crisis neither involves nor affects me. I feel no connection to the people who live there—they are not my “brothers and sisters,” their fate has nothing to do with me; don’t pretend they have anything to do with you. I don’t care if a bunch of Arabs want to kill a bunch of indiginates, it happens all the time, and it happens because their society is primitive and uncivilized.

Do I like the fact that 400,000 people have been killed there? No. Do I wish that Africa as well as the whole world would live in freedom and (thus) prosperity? Yes. But wishing it true won’t change its reality. And to fix Darfur will change a real and concentrated effort. And that effort will cost a price. The question that remains is, why should we engage in this effort?

The efforts that exist as is—the initiatives of the bleeding hearts and Darfur-is-the-in-thing-to-do teenagers—only involve money. But in all their infinite self-righteousness they failed to recognize that the nature of the issue cannot be solved by money. Dollars don’t stop bullets—bullets stop bullets. The only way to stop government genocide is to do it by force. Someone must intervene militarily for any genocide to be stopped.

But for intervention to occur at least one nation must take responsibility. But whom? Is there any nation, any person who is obligated to help? No, of course not. Not the US, not any nation—save the Sudan itself—is guilty of the crimes committed there, so they have not responsibility to invest themselves to alter the course. Nor do these nations have a responsibility to themselves to intervene in Darfur because the Sudan is not by any stretch of the imagination a threat to the security of their country.

Of course this does not say that anyone is not morally justified in attempting to fight—Sudan is a murderous regime that perpetually violates the rights of their citizens and systematically operates on a premise larger than death. But if you do chose to fight for Darfur then you must fight yourself. You cannot and may not drag anyone else into this fight. What do I mean by this? I mean that you can donate as much money as you want but you cannot take my money and donate it (i.e. international aid via taxes…duh). I mean that you can go fight in Darfur as part of an ad hoc vigilante militia but you cannot deploy US military—who I pay and whose job is to protect me—and waste their efforts and their lives on a problem irrelevant to American security.

As far as I’m concerned my government exists to protect my rights—just as other governments exist to protect their citizens. So the only time my government should wield its foreign policy is when my rights are threatened by foreign belligerents. Anything more is a waste of my money, which the government confiscated from me, and thus tramples on my rights. So if the United States government endeavors to fix the shit pie that is the Sudan—a nation whose government in zero ways threatens American freedom—it does so at my expense. And quite frankly we have enough people in the world trying to kill us already to begin worrying about people who aren’t.

I think the most childish thing about the save Darfur crowd is that for all their labors they have never actually enumerated a plan or even a general strategy for solving it. Most of the efforts have concentrated around “awareness”—we hear that word a lot with them—well guess what? We’re aware; surely, all of our policy makers know about it; so is the UN. But awareness does not come close to solving the problem. As I said, someone’s gonna have to wage war. But the problem is that the save Darfur crowd is the type of crowd hardly willing to fight a war and face up to the harsh realities of it. They are the type who thinks that they can live outside of reality, where you can stop a bomb by holding hands, contradicting values can live in harmony, and there is no objective concept of evil.

The only proper roll of a foreign policy is self-defense—in the same way that government is created for the purpose of defending the individual rights of its citizens. Privately donating and striving for Darfurians is wonderful, but no one has an obligation to Darfur which is why employing our government—using the tax money and lives of Americans—to fix the problem is an unjust option. Simply it seams like the bleeding hearts of the world have been following each other without ever looking where they are heading. They don’t seem to be willing to defend our country from a belligerent like Iran, but when the fate of the primitive and irrelevant are brought to the table everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It’s about time we got a hold of ourselves and allow rationality to enter the debate. Someone has got to have the balls to say it: Darfur just doesn’t matter.

Popularity: 30% [?]