Responding to the Remnants of Genocide - Case Study Example

One firmly believes that humanitarian concerns should take priority over justice in Darfur due to the greater number of people who would benefit from taking this course of action rather than demanding justice through indicting the Sudanese president. This course of action was likewise seen as the most plausible and viable recourse by humanitarian groups and even by the members of the Obama administration. It simply means that there are government leaders and humanitarian officials who acknowledge that more civilian lives would be endangered by imposing justice immediately. There are appropriate strategies, times, and efforts that could instigate a more appropriate resolution to the problem in Darfur.

2. The dangers of delaying the prosecution of al-Bashir include the continued genocide within the country and the possibility of a civil war that could re-ignited as Arab militias continue to battle with the remaining members of the rebel groups. Likewise, as indicated by a member of the humanitarian organization, delaying prosecution is indicative of undermining the jurisdiction of the ICC and showing to the world that their sovereignty is being compromised.

3. One shares the same contention that the U.S. should take a softer approach in handling the Sudanese situation. The decision that was apparently arrived at could be deemed to go through a collaborative and comprehensive negotiation process; as such, the softer approach was deemed more beneficial to both countries in the long run. As disclosed, by taking a softer approach, there are more possibilities in arriving at a future negotiation with al-Bashir regarding disarming the Arab militia and bringing back humanitarian workers to provide the much needed humanitarian aid to their people. The strategy brought lesser bloodshed through peaceful techniques.

4. One strongly believes that there is a possibility that the United States and other governments would strive in restoring peace and security by negotiating directly with the government of Sudan. In more negotiation cases and scenarios, it is always ethically, morally, and legally viable to forge an agreement directly with parties that are involved in conflicts and dilemmas. Since leaders of the Sudan government were instrumental in creating conflict and chaos in their region, the resolution to these conflicts would also be decided by these leaders. Assistance would only be provided by other nations when solicited and approved by the Sudan government. As such, restoring peace and security should be worked out by the government of Sudan, with possible assistance from other international agencies and governments, if and when, this assistance is sought.

5. From ethical perspectives, one thinks that negotiations with a supposedly evil leader could be delved into when there is a possibility that a positive action or change could ensue. There is nothing static or permanent in this world; meaning, even an evil leader has the potential to change. If the negotiator manifests exemplary skills and competencies that would urge and persuade the evil leader to change the ways and actions that were previously taken, then, at all means, direct negotiations would not counter ethical standards.