In an article to Newsweek magazine on December 10, 2009, Angelina Jolie addressed the atrocities in Sudan, Africa. She questions international policy regarding the approach to humanitarian aid in Sudan. Although her humanitarian endeavors are commendable, it is hard to understand her reasoning; because with understanding acts of peace and with understanding acts of violence, consideration must lend itself to the stability of a government and to the sovereignty of such government. I argue, Ms. Jolie tends to overlook such need for a stable government. Angelina states the following in her Newsweek article regarding the Obama administration's international approach to Sudan-
"their policy, though, raises a number of questions. How is the Obama administration's approach to Sudan an evolution of justice? In addition, when the administration says it intends to work to "improve the lives of the people of Darfur," I would like to know what that means, besides the obvious point that their lives could hardly get worse."
I question whether Ms. Jolie fully understands the necessity of a stable government, for any territory, to maintain a host of variables representative of a sovereign nation. Such variables of liberty, freedom, and trade granted to the citizens of Sudan are examples of decent building blocks to help the people work towards building a sustainable livelihood, as well as a path towards peace.
However, how is such policy achieved in Sudan? What about the Congo? The Congolese are experiencing mass atrocities which supersede the numbered casualties related to the Holocaust. As such, thousands of Congolese are crossing the borders into Sudan.
It is hard to implement human rights in a country which first must deal with their government. Without a stable system of government, any execution of humanitarian activity gets lost. Sudan also faces large refugee influxes from neighboring countries, primarily Ethiopia, Congo, and Chad; furthermore, armed conflict, a poor infrastructure for transportation, and a lack of government support have chronically obstructed the provision of humanitarian assistance to affected populations.
Tackle these issues first and the people of Sudan will have a starting point. Sudan is operated by a military junta. A government ran by a military junta is not going to bring economic and humanitarian aid to their country; at least not at an easy or affordable price for the citizens trying to live under such a political regime. However, Argentina and Chile were once governed by a military junta and these two countries eradicated such form of dictatorship/leadership, but Argentina and Chile are playing with a different set of variables than Sudan. Nonetheless, the people of Argentina and Chile, coupled with international support, changed their country. Argentina had the revolution of the "Mothers of the Plaza De Mayo" and Chile had the "No" Campaign; both non-violent revolutions brought change to their country. Granted, Pinochet eventually stepped down and allowed for the transfer of presidential power in Chile, which is necessary for a government to change hands, but the people of Chile, as well as the people of Argentina, fought and lost and kept on fighting their oppressors until they were victorious in reaching a political change. Political change which created a system of government and ended a reign of totalitarian terror in these two Latin American countries. Perhaps the road to survival in Sudan rests with the collective collaborations of the oppressed people within the country. In the words of Sun Tzu, “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. ”
