This forum is now closed. Read the archived postings below, and continue the discussion by posting new comments on the Voices on Genocide Prevention blog — where Jerry Fowler interviews human rights defenders, experts, advocates, and government officials each week and posts occasional blog entries on the crisis in Darfur and genocide prevention around the world today.
Carolina B
April 17, 2006 03:05 PM
In reviewing some of the genocidal history of the last 50 years, I came across the interesting example in Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell," of Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia. While this nation upset the US by ending the reign of the Khmer Rouge and in effect compromising Cambodia's sovereignty, it made me wonder if local intervention, rather than international, was the solution to ending genocidal regimes quickly and effectively. What Vietnam managed to accomplish in 10 days of hard military action was remarkable when you consider all the talk and deliberation that prevented other nations from acting. Thus, my question is whether empowering neighboring African nations is a potential solution to future brutal regimes. Is it feasible to believe that internal politics (as in Vietnam and Cambodia) could serve as a check against brutal activity, even if the intervening nations are only acting in their own interests? Who could prompt these neighboring nations to act and in the end would it be more effective than waiting for the world to do something? Just a thought, but I believe it might be.
