what to do about ethnic cleansing
In 1994, unrest swept through the Maryland-sized African nation of Rwanda. Thousands of Hutu extremists launched a massive assault on the Tutsi, who traditionally make up Rwanda's upper class, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people (Night Rider - "most days"). The United States immediately responded to this slaughter by turning the other way, denying that a problem existed until years after the genocide had ceased. In 1999, ethnic cleansing (hostility between ethnic groups) broke out in Kosovo in a less severe form. This time, instead of being killed, the Kosovars were driven out of their homes and neighborhoods. This time, United States and NATO forces immediately confronted the problem by launching a substantial air war on the area. Clearly, the doctrine for ethnic cleansing is widely varied, and merits further discussion. Ethnic cleansing is a "phrase for an attempt to purge an area of an unwanted ethnic group. It can include deportation, intimidation, and acts of genocide or mass murder." (Encarta, "Ethnic cleansing"). It occurs most frequently in third world countries. Whenever it arises, it is followed by a host of moral questions. Do we just stay out co
mpletely and allow the country to deal with its own problems? Or, if we decide to take action, do we merely send medical aid or help militarily? Should we send in the army? Or is an air war the only acceptable option? It all comes down to an ethical issue, with one group insisting that preventing the loss of lives is paramount. The other side states that ethnic cleansing is caused by a fundamental disagreement between two ethnic groups, so unless we allow the groups to resolve their own issues, they can never be content and productive. The second side is those who believe the world powers should intervene. This side is driven almost entirely by ethics, saying that saving lives is paramount to all other concerns. This side feels that to allow one ethnic group to be persecuted by another when we have the power to stop it is morally unspeakable. This side will invariably point to Hitler as an example of what could happen when ethnic cleansing is let to go uncontrolled. This is the side whose views are currently dominant, which caused NATO to intervene in Kosovo. There is also a middle ground, which believes that cleansing should be allowed to go on, as long as it stays within the country's own borders and does not affect its neighbors adversely. This middle ground supports certain parts of both sides. It believes that while the country should be allowed to conduct its own internal affairs as it sees fit, as soon as the conflict oversteps the nation's borders, we must intervene to prevent the trouble from spreading as it did during the holo
Some common words found in the essay are:
Indians Mexicans, United States', Encarta Ethnic, United NATO, Adolph Hitler's, Night Rider, Iraq Kosovo, ethnic cleansing, Thousands Hutu, Germany Rwanda, BACKGROUND PAPER, human rights issue, air war, distinction distinction, lives paramount, middle ground, rights issue, intervene countries', extreme ethnic, extreme ethnic cleansing, world powers, military escort,
Approximate Word count = 1045
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
