The U.S. should intervene in Darfur.

"Accepted. For clarification, as you oppose "any other kind of intervention in Darfur.", I will be focusing on military trade sanctions against Sudan" -The resolution is "The U.S. should intervene in Darfur." Darfur is located in Sudan, but the resolution is not "The U.S. should intervene in Sudan." You can focus on military trade sanctions against Sudan if you'd like, but it would do you no good in this debate as it does not relate to the debate. http://www.csmonitor.com... We should not intervene in Darfur because: 1) The results of intervention can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it has left the U.S. overextended and in massive debt. America should help itself and its own people before ever thinking to reach out to poor countries around the globe. 2) The U.S. would further damage its image by going into Darfur. 3) The situation in Darfur does not pose a threat to international peace and security. 4) Humanitarian wars are almost never fought for purely humanitarian reasons. National interests and geopolitics are almost always the driving factor in military intervention. For example, in Kosovo, NATO had clear political interests at stake. There were no political interests in Rwanda though, so no major military intervention took place. The nations that were intervened purely for humanitarian reasons, such as in Somalia and Haiti, interest was quickly lost. In Darfur, there are geopolitical reasons to intervene, and that reason is oil. Would the U.S. intervening in Darfur in the name of humanity but instead going for the oil be right? Not at all. If the U.S. intervenes only for humanitarian reasons, will they stay long? Absolutely not. (1) 5) Humanitarian intervention is only a front for 21st century colonialism driven by neo-liberals set on the idea of the "perfect world" where free markets and free trade can exist everywhere. Their theory is that with democratic governments and open markets, countries will not go to war; which is the policy being used in Iraq today. The people of America have voiced their opinions. They do not like the policy in Iraq and it is foolish to think that they would like it in Darfur. Neo-liberalizing third-world countries is a policy destined to fail, and should not be used in Darfur. (2) 6) To intervene in Darfur is to destroy the importance of the Treaty or Peace of Westphalia that has successfully governed the world since 1648. The Treaty of Westphalia has been the guiding document on basic principles of state sovereignty for over 450 years. Simply discarding the Treaty sets up a very dangerous precedent on the future of state sovereignty. Is it fair for the U.S. to decide that using military action against Darfur is ok; but also decide that Russia invading Georgia to protect the people of South Ossetia is wrong? Of course it is wrong, and it is incredibly hypocritical. (3) 7) The U.S. is highly hypocritical in another way as well. The situation in Darfur is a direct result of European/Western colonialism/imperialism. Starting with Belgium in 1892, and followed by French, Italian, and British domination; the European powers left Darfur in the mess that they are in today. It's best that Darfur be undisturbed by Western influence as the past has suggested that it is a bad idea. (4) 8) Humanitarian interventions almost always do more harm than good. Nations often go into humanitarian interventions to stop violations of human rights and international law, but the exact opposite usually happens. The U.S. military will fight to win; they will not fight for peace. And in that process, something terrible will surely happen; something like the Abu Ghraib incident in Iraq could happen; or in Kosovo, where the airstrikes, while successful, caused the Serbs to kill and eradicate the Albanian Kosovars faster. ---Sources--- (1) http://www.fpif.org... (2) http://www.globalresearch.ca... (3) http://plato.stanford.edu... (4) http://www.ired.com...