By Michael Vass | September 16, 2015
** Orignally written by Michael “Vass” Vasquez at Binghamton Political Buzz Examiner.com **
So there is a question that should be asked at this moment. Europe is taking in thousands of Syrian refugees. President Obama has authorized taking in 10,000 refugees on September 10, 2015. Why?
Let’s put this in context. Since 1983 the Sudan has been in civil war on and off. Estimates have been in the range of 400,000 killed with 2.5 million displaced in 2014 alone in Darfur (which is the size of France for reference). Since 2004 there have been Bills before Congress to recognize the genocide on-going in the Darfur region of the Sudan. In fact there has been H. Con. Res. 467 in 2004, H.R. 1424 in 2005, H.R. 3127 in 2005, H.R. 6140 in 2006, H.R. 180 in 2007, S. Res. 455 in March 2008 (supported by Sen. Barack Obama – 2/27/08), H. Con. Res 159 in 2009, H.R. 1692 in 2013, all addressing the genocide in Darfur. Then on February 11, 2015, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts addressed the House of Representatives on the floor of Congress to discuss the current situation.
“As humanitarian agencies withdraw from the region, unable to carry out their missions in the face of unrelenting attacks, the civilian and displaced populations of Darfur are left without protection and without witnesses… According to reports by United to End Genocide, since January 1 [2015], at least 20,000 innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur… More than 430,000 people newly displaced in Darfur in 2014, the highest number since the height of the genocide. Over 2,000 bombs dropped in South Kordofan and Blue Nile since fighting began there in 2012.”
For more than a decade, America has been aware of and spoken about the civil war in the Sudan. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions chased from their homes. Celebrities including George Clooney and Matt Damon have strived to raise public awareness of the suffering of the people of Darfur. In fact, Sen. Barack Obama made a key statement about the issue in 2006,
“In 2006, President Obama made a promise to the people of Darfur: “We can’t say ‘never again’ and allow it to happen again. As President of the United States, I don’t intend to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.”
In more than 30 years of civil war, with Congress acknowledging the genocide occurring, less than 50,000 refugees have been taken into the U.S. That’s approximately 1,524 people every year for 32 years. That is with a worldwide consensus on an on-going atrocity.
In Syria, which has been in civil war since 2011, the US took in some 1,494 refugees. That’s 299 refugees per year. But in 2016, as per the declaration of President Obama, some 10,000 refugees will be taken in 2016 alone. That is more than 20% of all refugees taken in from the Sudan in 32 years.
The question that faces the nation is why? What makes the refugees in Syria more worth than an on-going genocide? Why should the refugees bypass the “robust security process“, described by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, which takes 2 years to pass and suddenly enter the US en masse? In fact, the promised inflow of Syrian refugees would be 14.3% of the number of refugees taken in 2014 – the total of 69.987 refugees which is itself the highest number of refugees taken in one year since 2002.
The answer is not exactly clear. The Obama Administration sites the “generosity of Europe” in taking in refugees. Democrats have requested that 65,000 Syrian refugees be taken in. But at no point is there an answer why the people of Darfur, targets of genocide for 3 decades, rate lower on the scale of need than the refugees of Syria who have suffered for a decade. Instead Rep. Zoe Lofgren has suggested on September 13, 2015, that,
“We should do our part by admitting 200,000 refugees, with 100,000 reserved for refugees from Syria.”
It is a shame that the question must even be asked. That the crisis of one set of people must be equated with another is shameful. But the politics of the situation demands an answer. Because the Obama Administration is clearly and willfully making a categorical choice. A choice that it was unwilling to make for people that the President himself had identified as needing relief from suffering. A need that he has done little to nothing to address so far in 2 terms of office.
What is the pressing need to take in 10,000 – 100,000 Syrian refugees? Why are they more worthy than those of Darfur, or anywhere else in the world? What political benefit is at the root of this sudden and dramatic change in US policy? These are questions that not only must be asked, but answered.
Source:
http://ift.tt/1grSHwU