On Pacificism and Darfur

I've spent some time over the past eight months studying, and struggling with, the case for pacifism, especially in an international context; by this I mean the belief that the use of force by a government against another state can never be justified. The case for pacifism is rooted in respect of human life, the fact that each individual is unique and cannot be replaced, and that killing is therefore never justifiable. The problem with pacifism arises, however, when you encounter situations in which the loss of some lives are pitted against others. The best example of this is genocide. If people are getting killed, and will continue to get killed without intervention, one is left with a painful calculation: weighing the deaths of the victims of the genocide against the potential deaths which would result from intervention - those of military personnel, civilian bystanders, aid workers, and the genocidal regime. At some point, this calculation makes intervention worthwhile, even when the sole consideration made is that of respect for human life. There is an additional argument for pacifism, however. I have come to the conclusion that the only way pacifism can be tenable is by way of this argument: any use of force by a government adds to the legitimacy of force as a socially acceptable response or solution to conflict; the problems and consequences of this increased legitimacy outweigh any evil, death, or destruction that would be stopped by way of forceful intervention. The advancer of this argument would also have to believe that even the worst cases of genocide and mass extermination should be met only with means short of force - probably sanctions and negotiation (with an irrational tyrant). It is for this reason that I believe the case for pacifism does not hold much water. Instead I consider myself what is commonly termed a pacificist; that is, one inclined to nonviolence but willing to accept that there may be, and indeed are and have been, situations in which force is necessary. I appreciate the pacifist movement and believe their hearts are in the right places; and I think that, despite the flimsy argument on which they stand, their movement is a positive force in the world, championing a noble cause - the advancement of nonviolent means as legitimate responses to conflict and wrongdoing, and the scorning of force.

That was a bit of a longwinded introduction, but my point is this: if indeed there are times when force is needed, such a situation currently exists in Darfur. The genocide in Darfur has so far resulted in the death of 300,000, the displacement of 1.5 million, and 200,000 fleeing the country to Chad. Even though Bush has called this atrocity genocide, he has not exhibited the leadership to stop it. The White House has not even taken a position on a related bipartisan piece of legislation making its way through Congress, The Darfur Accountability Act. This act, sponsored by Senators Jon Corzine (of New Jersey, of whom I am very proud) and Sam Brownback (a Republican from Kansas), aims to do the following: 1) reconfirm that genocide continues to occur in Darfur; 2) offer specifics about how the genocide can be stopped, including establishment of a no-fly zone over Darfur; 3) increase economic aid to the African Union (AU) to help their efforts in the region, and encourage other international donors to do the same; 4) provide military and tactical support to the AU by giving them whatever they need - technical assistance, better equipment, better transportation, etc.; 5) provide details as to what a new Security Council resolution should include, including sanctions; 6) impose an arms embargo on the government of Sudan; 7) call on the Secretary of State to begin a campaign to stop the genocide; 8) call for the appointment of a Presidential Envoy for Sudan; 9) call for accountability of those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by way of a competent international court of justice; and 10) call for the freezing of assets of these criminals, as well as the refusal to grant travel visas to them, and provide pressure on other countries to do the same.

The inactivity of the international community in making efforts to stop this genocide does nothing but help the Government of Sudan to allow this to continue, and encourage the perpetrators of these crimes to continue their terror. This must stop. I have contacted my congressmen about these atrocities and urged them to support The Darfur Accountability Act, as well as to display leadership in advancing this cause; I encourage you to do the same.

To read the text of The Darfur Accountability Act, click here. Nicholas Kristof, Op-ed writer for the New York Times, has written many urgent, moving articles on the crisis in Darfur; see a list of his columns here. There are a host of other good websites for more information, including The Genocide Intervention Fund, Save Darfur and DarfurGenocide.org.