PROJECT #6 - why the US should pay attention to this story . . .

 

 

 As the Genocide in Darfur continues with deaths increasing  by the thousands, it is time for the global community to demand action. Students across the nation and internationally are coming together and taking a stand. The global community should care about this issue because it is a humanitarian issue, not just ruthless killings of innocents.

 

Genocide in Darfur

Salih Booker

June, 24,2004

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040712/booker

Date accessed: Nov,30, 2008

 

Throughout history the international community has experienced the power of genocide and the ammounts of people who are both killed and many more who are displaced from their homes. Previous genocides such as the one that happened in Rwanda have opened the the worlds eyes to what people are capable of and in many cases, in particular the case with Rwanda many feel that the international community as a whole acted to slow. The fear now has moved on to Darfur and as people how become increasingly aware of the situtation and the iimportance to act, many as asking why the international  community isnt doing more. Darfur is currently experiencing the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. it has failed cease fires and even with humaniartian aid there are facts stating that still hundreds of thousands will still die. The international community is hesitant to act because fear of jepordizing its relationship with the northern and southern parts in africa. There has been clear humanitarian aid from countries such as the united states, but the aid is not truly saving lives, those who need aid do need humanaitarian help, but what is most imortant is for the international community to take physical action with the use of miliary and/or arms.

 

 

"Darfur on Their Radar"

 

By Jackson Diehl

 

Monday, April 2, 2007; Page A15

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100809.html

 

 

  Through the past there has been a general concern over whether or not the u.s politicians are doing enough or showing enough concern for the genocide in Darfur. And as more citizens become informed on the issue it is clear that more and more want to take a stand. And yes, there has been more support and there had been more concern among the global community.Thr problem at hand now is not whether the U.S is concerned but more importantly that at the time the u.s is too spread out at the time, and that darfur is going to have to wait. The u.s does want to take a stand and does recognize the problems but other issues such as the war in iraw have to be addressed first

 

 

   http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/sudan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo 

 

Sudan

 

Sunday, November 23, 2008

The situation present within Sudan at the time has become an increasingly important global issue. As rebel groups across the Sudan spread their terror and continue to kill innocents, the world is demanding a change. President Bush has officially established that the issue is a genocide and now the U.N is beginning to make steps towards addressing the issue and making the transition from recognizing the issue to taking action.

 

 

http://www.genocideintervention.net/educate/darfur 

 

Darfur

  Genocide Intervention NetworkAs the general public has become increaslingly informed on the issue that is going on in Darfur. It is time to take the initiative to educate.  The violence and the number of innocents that are being killed is disturbingly high, and rebel groups such as the Jangaweed do not intend on stopping the murders. Although it is important to educate others, it has become recently important to teach children in schools about the issue, and getting the youth involved.

 

http://www.darfurdivestment.org/What_is_Targeted_Divestment?/

 

What is Targeted Divestment?

 

Darfur Divestment World Wide

One of the solutions that has been brought to the table about he situation in Darfur is to use targeted investment. This idea is seen as something that could seriously put an end to the genocide in Darfur. The idea simply is that if one can stop the funding of violence and arms than innocents will be saved. The divestment can only be as helpful as to how many get involved in the process, yes if one country decides to divest it is contributing towards change, but more importantly if several countries decided to divest then the genocides will be affected.

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

  Throughout the presidential elections there has been continuous media coverage on topics such as plans to alleviate the financial crisis, the war in Iraq and recently the situation within Darfur. In October of 2008, Vice presidential nominees, Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden agreeably discussed the steps to address the genocide in Darfur. Although both nominees agreed on the establishment of a no-fly zone, however (people)  such as Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman  Ali- as Sadig disagreed with the potential establishment of the no-fly zone.  Through reading several articles it is apparent that there are two sides to this story. The perspective of Darfur through the eyes of United State powers, and that of a powerful figure in Sudan(Fragement). In  (or through)following  this topic it is apparent that there are several biases in which the reader must be aware.  After reading these articles the three main biases present were, bias by omission, bias by commission and bias by source selection.Make sure you have a clear thesis statement.

 

 

            In trying to gain a sense of knowledge on Darfur or any issue in general, one must know the solid facts and or history. When reading articles written on Darfur it is evident that there has been political recognition of the problem in the past , but not enough actual politicol/physical force or action has been taken. In an artice written by Chad Marzen, “Darfur and the 2008 Election”, he wrote, Since 2003 thousands of innocent people have been viciously murdered, and the numbers continue to climb. Back in 2004 when the previous presidential compaign was going on, opponents Dem. John Kerry and Rep. George Bush disagreed on many policies, but one issue they both agreed on was Darfur. Both agreed that the situation in Dafur was genocide and that they would like to work with the Africa Union in order to solve the issue. (http://davisiaj.com/content/view/299/93/ [proper citation])The article continued to express the similarties between the republican and democratic parties on the issue by continuing to state their plans in the future. Although as seen in many other articles, both parties appear to be quite hesitate with the idea of actually sending U.S troops into Darfur.  (http://davisiaj.com/content/view/299/93/) [proper citation]) This article was not bias because it gave an overall summery of how the U.S has and hopes to approach the situation in Darfur. The article in no way sways towards or criticize harshly one party more than the other, and in fact continues to give thorough background evidence on the U.S involvement with the genocide in Darfur.

           

            After the vice presidential debates between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden , there was a boom in media responses to their proposed solution to Darfur. According to several articles Palin and Biden both agreed in establishing the air space above  Darfur as a No –Fly Zone.  In response to this  proposed solution, many writers incorporated the reaction of the Sudanese foreign minister’s response to Pain and Bidens plan.  In the article, “ Sudan criticizes Palin, Biden over Darfur flight plan”, author Andrew Hughes clearly decided to use center on the Sudanese foreign ministers response. Within the article Hughes incorpoartates quote from the Sudanese forighn minister such as, “They know very little about what is going on here," he said. "Their statements were meant for local consumption. They had nothing to do with Darfur." (http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSB141313._CH_.2400 The majority of the article centered on only the foreign ministers perspective. Therefore this article was bias by commission because it only centered on one specific side of the story, rather reporting of the disadvantages/advantages in both sides.  Along with the use of bias of commission the article further categorizes as using a bias by selection of sources. That is, if one decides to only select from a collection of related stories, one then is manipulating the story to have one main perspective.

           

            As the problem in Darfur has become increasingly more important to the American people, Politian’s are making steps to encourage change. In several artices it has been stated that both the current democratic and republican parties are in fact agreement with putting an end to the genocide in Darfur.  Some articles have reported on the historical backgroupnd of U.S presidents position on the issue within Sudan, and other articles have chosen to use the Sudanese foreign minsters point of view on the potential soutions vice presitenntial canidates, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden have proposed. Although other articles have mainly centered on the fact that American politicians are in all making an honest effort to solve the issue.( http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=180855) The articles also highlight no only are the politicians showing that they truly want to take action, but more importantly trying to initiate the steps in order for change to occur. The question now, is how the candidates are going to approach the situation and what steps they believe to be made. The three main organizations, the save Darfur coalition, the enough action fund and genocide intervention network feel that the two candidates are really illustrating a strong desire to attack this issue and are very hopeful in that the candidates have taken much more desire to take action than previous politicians.( http://obiwon.gaia.com/blog/2008/10/obama_and_mccain_on_darfur) Although these articles tend to portray the political figures in a very productive light on the issue, one must question whether they are omitting any information. Yes, the articles do report that the Politian are desiring change and wanting to take action, but the articles are not stating the facts or opinions for the other side, in this case, the Sudanese perspective.

 

 

            With the increasing popularity of Darfur within both the US and the media, one must also recognize the biases that come hand in hand with the information provided. Such biasas as , bias by commission, omission and bias by sources are have been present in several articles reporting on the current political strategy towards taking action in Sudan.  There are clearly two main sides to the story when looking at Darfur, the perspective from the Sudanese and that perspective of those from the U.S . For an article to contain no biases, it must contain both sides of the story. Although facts and information is revealed in all articles, the information is provided in a way in which may portray the issue in a particular way.

 

 

 

Revised Introduction:

 

 

After reading several different articles reporting on both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates present stance on the situation in Darfur, it is evident that the articles are broken into two separate types, one, those reporting on strictly the facts, and two, focusing on the Sudanese response to the vice president nominees stance on the issue within Darfur. Clearly, deciding to incorporate the Sudanese perspective is reporting the facts, but by using this piece of information, ones stance on the issue could be greatly affected and therefore depicting the presidential and vice presidential candidates in a negative light. In general those articles in which state the facts and back round history tend to stay away from asserting a particular tone or opinion.

 

 

 

 

1.    Those articles in which state the facts

a.     Historically shows what other politicians (President Bush) have done or feel towards the situation in Darfur

                                                        i.     Not bias because only gives historical information, there may be bias by story selection to fairly represent past politicians.

b.     Does the media portray Bush Fairly?

                                                        i.     Bias by commission

 

 

c.      McCain’s past support of taking action in Darfur

i. the media’s view on McCain’s past plans for Darfur in general.

 

 

2.    Articles in which contain Sudanese foreign ministry’s spokesman, Ali as-Sadig’s response to Joe Biden and Sarah Palin’s plan for the No- Fly Zone over Darfur

a.     Articles depict the Vice presidential candidates as people who are just trying to win the public over

b.     Vice presidents don’t understand the situation in Darfur

c.      The Vice presidents plans are in his eyes wrong and therefore he states that the vice presidential candidates do not know what they are doing

d.     Establish how this perspective projects the Vice presidential candidates in a negative light.

e.     How if the reader were to read only this argument, they would clearly feel strongly that the vice presidential candidates do not know what they are doing in Darfur.

f.      The consequences of acting upon a NO –fly zone

g.      Bias by commission

 

 

3.    Other solutions to help those in Darfur other than no fly zone

a.     Divestment

                                                        i.     What is divestment, what does that mean to divest ?

                                                       ii.     How does divestment work?

                                                     iii.     Sarah Palin’s specific plan to divest

                                                    iv.     Bias by commission

 

 

4.    Conclusion

a.     How the media portrays each of these categories

b.     Does the media portray the vice and presidential candidates in a negative light?

c.      How does the medias coverage on the vice presidential candidates effect the overall perspective on the presidential candidate’s

d.     Are the two interconnected? Do one negative cancel or the other, or do the facts overcome the limited negatives?

US-led no-fly zone would ‘impede’ aid to Darfur - Sudan

Monday 6 October 2008 04:31.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, October 4, 2008; Page A06 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/04/ST2008100400558.html

 

In the response to the genocide in darfur, Sarah Palin has decided that the first and most important  step in trying to end the genocide in Darfur is to divest. Divesting any sort of finanical flow to the coutry of sudan would limit their ability to buy weapons and continue the genocides. Divestment would be key because without the funding, the rebel groups will not have the money to follow through with their actions. Although this is not a way for the united states to take military power, it is a way for the united states to flex its financial power. Also, with the United States divesting , it is a hope that other countries too will start divesting as well.

 

 

I believe this article was objective because it stated the facts without having an opinion. 

 

 

 

 

Sudan criticises Palin, Biden over Darfur flight ban

By Andrew Heavens

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSB141313._CH_.2400

Date accessed: October, 26,2008

 

2) As the issue of Darfur has become increasingly important in the upcoming elections, the American people are looking for answers and leaders who have a plan to put an end to the genocide in Darfur.  Recently, in the vice presidential elections Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin agreed to impose a no fly zone above the area of Darfur. Both parties beleived that it would be both a step in the right direction and something that can be accomplished. In response to Palin and Bidens comments, Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali as-Sadig claimed that the two parties did not make this would not be the right step. Not only did disagree with what both parties had to say on the issue, but he stated, ""They know very little about what is going on here," he said. "Their statements were meant for local consumption. They had nothing to do with Darfur." (sadig) Sadig further explained that this method would be ineffective because in fact the sudanese armed forces were not using aircrafts in order to fight the rebel groups. Therefore , solutions towards ending the genocide in Darfur must continue.

 

This article was fair because there was a stong voice within the article. Although stating the facts an opinion was  clearly present. 

 

3) " Dems staking out role in foreign policy"

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

 San Francisco  Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/10/MNG6SMA3RS1.DTL&type=politics

 Friday, November 10, 2006 

Date accessed: October, 26, 2008

 

In 2006 the democratic party was making a clear effort to state their role in foreign policy.  Throughout this effort the issue of Darfur made its way into one of the issues being heavily discussed. But as always attension was drawn to Darfur, but nothing more than a statment in which simply said that more has to be done. Although many are outraged by the situation in Darfur , other issues, such as global warming and nuclear power have been more important. The question now is not whether people want to help and take action, but when, when are people going to put change into action?

 

 This article was stricly objective in that it stated the facts, it gave a back up information on the democratic party without making an political jabs. 

4) " Darfur and the 2008 Election"

Chad Marzen

International Affairs Journal at UC Davis 

Feb, 7, 2007

Date accessed; October, 26, 2008

http://davisiaj.com/content/view/299/93/

 

Since 2003 thousands of innocent people have been viciously murdered, and the numbers continue to climb. Back in 2004 when the previous presidential compaign was going on, opponents Dem. John Kerry and Rep. George Bush disagreed on many policies, but one issue they both agreed on is Darfur. Both agreed that the situation in Dafur was a genocide and that they would like to work with the Africa Union in order to solve the issue. Since then the democratic and republican parties have been working to spread awareness about the issue, and now within the upcoming election the issue continues to remain important and both leaders, Barack Obama and John McCain see eye to eye on the issue. A solution and a plan of action remains to be the last puzzle piece. The problem and issue has been addressed, but there is no clear plan of action.

 

This article was objective in that it stated both the history and the process in which the united states has taken so far in the fight agaist genocide.

 

 

"Groups press Darfur issue as U.S Vote nears"

Tehran Times

Tehran Times online

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=180855

October,26, 2008

 

5) As the final days within the presidential debate  edge closer and closer Darfur activists groups such as Africa Now and the Save Dafur continue to stress the importance of the next presidential figure's role in confronting the crisis going on within Sudan. It is clear that within these organizations there are many Americans who have shown that they do care about Darfur and want a president that will want to take action on the issue. Factors such as the economic crisis within America are starting to redirect the Presidential canidates attension  on issues such as Darfur. As a result many activitsts and organizations worry that the economic stress will take away from America's stance on its goal to Save Darfur. Because organizations such as Africa Now, view the U.S as the most powerful country, they too believe it is important that as a result the U.S continue to rally supporters to interfere with the genocide.

Beau

 

 

This article was fair in that there was a clear opinion accompaning the facts, but at the same time I beleive that the opinion was very open and did not harshly critisize anyone unfairly. I beleive that there was a clear voice, but it did not take away from the facts that were stated. 

 

 

 

6) Obama and McCain on Darfur

Posted on Sep.11 2008

http://obiwon.gaia.com/blog/2008/10/obama_and_mccain_on_darfur

Date accessed: October, 21,2008

Nanda Chitre (ENOUGH), 202-481-8245

As the presidential elections continue to stir much discussion throughout the country, one issue that both parties agree with is the desire to end the ruthless murders of innocents within Darfur. Both candidates Barack Obama and John McCain clearly see eye to eye by labeling the situation within Darfur as a Genocide. The question now, is how the candidates are going to approach the situation and what steps they believe to be made. The three main organizations, the save Darfur coalition, the enough action fund and genocide intervention network feel that the two candidates are really illustrating a strong desire to attack this issue and are very hopeful in that the candidates have taken much more desire to take action than previous politicians.

~ Beau Madsen

 

This article was objective because it clearly stated the facts on what obama and mccain are trying to accomplish and more importantly how the two see eye to eye on much of the issues within darfur. There was no harsh critizm of either side. The author explained each political canidates role clearly.

 

 

 

Throughout this process of gathering information I have learned that there clearly have been steps taken to help the situation within darfur. The problem that does arise is that the united states has other foreign policies that are presently more important. Although the politicians and american people understand that the people in darfur need to help, it is a situation that must wait untill issues such as energy and the war in iraq are already addressed. Because the economy is still fluctuating the American people are focused on making sure that they themslves are taken car of before turning to other global efforts. The presidential and vice presidential canidates all in all agree that steps have to be taken into action.

 

Recently, there have been several articles written in response to what both Joe Biden and Sarak Palin had to say about the issue within Darfur. The topic at hand was whether the VP canidates were in support of making the air zone above Darfur a no fly zone. Both canidates did agree in making the space in fact a no fly zone. A few days later, articles had been published quoting Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali as- Sadig claiming that this discission on behave of both canidates showed how little they really know about  situation in Darfur. The articles stating the sudanese foreign ministry spokenspman's opinion continue by including how he beleives that there is a lack of sinserity to both politicians solutions. I beleive that these articles stating the spokesman's opinion serve two key purposes. One, to show how those within Sudan feel about the United States potential  future involvement, but also does depict the politicians in a negative light. In comparison to the rest of the articles, there is a clear message in which states that both democratic and republican parties want to help, it is still a learning process in how to address the issue, but the importance is that they are willing to finally take action.