Darfur crisis gives reasons to rally

By Mike Pellicio

On April 30, 50 Santa Clara students joined the rally in San Francisco to raise support for ending the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Traversing the Golden Gate Bridge with banners and signs, protestors rallied for NATO and United Nations protection services that could possibly put an end to the mass extermination of an entire race of people.

The rally, extraordinarily vocal times while respectfully subdued at others, was a powerful demonstration of human emotion. Organizing for peace in a region mired in conflict, Sunday's protestors had a purpose.

This purpose is not always quite so clear, as shown by the question Matt Meyerhofer posed in his April 27 column on the crisis in Darfur: "What are we rallying behind?" In order to answer that question, we must first have some background.

The UN has cited the situation in Darfur as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Major conflict began in 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Army rebels responded to growing violence towards the black civilians in Darfur, the western region of Sudan.

The SLA mounted attacks against the Sudanese government. In response, the government conscripted a militia force called the Janjaweed, and has been conducting a brutal campaign of "ethnic cleansing" ever since. The genocide is perpetrated solely along racial lines, as members of each side are predominately Muslim.

Efforts of the international community to bring peace to the region have largely been lip service -- no substantial actions to halt the genocide have been taken as of yet. The UN Security Council remains paralyzed to act, with China and Russia -- two countries with veto power -- opposing intervention in Sudan. Russia is wary of intervention forces, while China fears losing oil profits from southern Sudan.

But this time, those who say it's not about the oil are correct. Darfur has no oil. The oil only indirectly affects the conflict.

Given these oppositions, however, the UN will likely have a force of Muslim troops on the ground in Sudan by the year 2007. But with 500 men, women and children dying every day, 2007 is too long to wait.

NATO needs to serve as a link to United Nations peacekeeping forces. Their support can be given both logistically and with a troop presence. NATO and the UN must also impose a no-fly zone over Darfur. If such a no-fly zone was imposed, Sudanese government gun-ships would no longer be able to rain death from the sky upon innocent villagers living in clay huts.

The government must stop bombing the homes of blameless individuals. This is a simple request, but it appears to be too big of a task for some cynics. The ideological crisis that the previous editorialist referred to lies only within those who are uninformed of the issue.

So, what are we rallying behind?

We are not simply rallying because it is our duty as members of a Jesuit institution to be involved in matters of social justice.

We are not rallying because it is our duty as privileged Americans to help those in need.

And we are not rallying just to rally.

We are rallying because of our shared humanity with those suffering the horrors of genocide.

This, my fellow Santa Clarans, is why we should all rally for Darfur.

So, read about the issue and spread awareness among friends and family. And, if you understand as I do, that genocide is an atrocity we cannot permit, then take action now.

Nick Obradovich is a freshman undeclared major.

Life sentence fitting for MoussaouiMike PellicioThe trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker" from the Sept. 11 attacks, has been marred with contradictions and embarrassments. The contradictions haven't exactly been of the humorous variety and the embarrassments have been, well, telling.

That being said, I believe the jury may have, (probably accidentally,) stumbled upon the right decision to sentence Moussaoui to life in prison without chance of parole. Don't get me wrong, it's embarrassing that the jury felt sad for his upbringing, his abusive father and uncle and his being shuffled from orphanage to orphanage.

Al-Qaeda threatens to bring America to its knees, and America strikes back with an all-expenses-paid trip to Dr. Phil. As a matter of fact, that might actually frighten me.

Should Moussaoui's life have been terminated? It would certainly be acceptable to kick him out of the community of the living, but two of the main arguments for capital punishment are justice and deterrence.

Justice involves sound judgment. Would it be fitting to sentence a jihadist to death? This is someone who was content to ride an airplane into a building to kill Americans to send a message. Someone who until last week relished the spotlight, and even now desperately wishes to grandstand as a constant reminder of what Al-Qaeda did to the United States.

And what of deterrence? Would Moussaoui's death deter jihadists? Would it deter suicide bombers? Would it have deterred Mohammad Atta?

Denying Moussaoui the death he wanted serves a different purpose: he'll never set foot in a courtroom to laugh at weeping American Naval officers again. He'll never be the central figure of a circus from which he can denounce America. And he'll never die a sensational death for the twisted purpose for which he lives.

A life sentence means he's no longer the center of attention. From the day of his sentencing one week ago and onward, he will become less and less significant in the media. He will fade into oblivion, and his publicity will peak when he's a $200 question on Jeopardy.

Moussaoui will rot in prison, devoid of contact with other prisoners, although technically surrounded by America's most pathetic, until he dies of natural causes, and gets a ticker mention on CNN Headline News. How attractive of a jihad is that?

Mike Pellicio is a junior political science major.