2008 Woodie Awards
Viewpoints
Issue date: 8/24/07 Section: Editorials
Darfur requires effective foreign intervention
The fight to stop violence in Darfur scored a victory earlier this month when the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution to send a force of 26,000 soldiers to the Darfur region of Sudan. However, with three weeks passing and the details of the resolution coming to light, the people of Darfur do not seem any closer to actual relief.
The resolution seemed like just the answer, but there is only one hurdle left - actually sending the U.N. force where they are most needed. According to BBC news Aug. 17, the unanimously passed resolution, titled the United Nations-Africa Union Mission in Darfur, would create a joint force falling under the direction of the current Sudanese government. The hope of the United Nations was to appear as not overstepping Sudan's political autonomy.
The most conservative of estimates put the death toll in Darfur at 200,000 with more than two million Darfurians left without a home or food. Yet the directions will be handed down from the same government responsible for letting, if not inspiring, this genocide to occur. National Public Radio's Weekend Edition Aug. 4 explained some of the more fine-print details of absolute absurdity within the U.N. resolution. For example, U.N soldiers are not allowed to take weapons from the Janjaweed Militia-those formally responsible for the violence. After four years of the worst kind of violence, the world's reaction is lacking. We are
coming into a big election year-look at what the candidates' stances are on foreign aid. Choose to hold our leaders accountable for actions in the global community.
Kansas State Collegian, Kansas State University
With schedule changes, Iowa caucus not relevant
An impending change in Iowa's caucus date stands to make the caucuses irrelevant. This is bad news for Iowans,
but, in reality, it's been a long time coming. It started when states such as Michigan, Florida and South Carolina decided to move up their primaries, hoping to grab a greater piece of the candidates' attention.
The move that broke the camel's back was South Carolina's, when, in response to Florida's move to Jan. 29, its GOP chairman moved the Republican primary to Jan. 19.
This forced a response from New Hampshire, whose primary had been tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22. Pundits have speculated that New Hampshire would hold its primary between Jan. 9 and 12, as a state law requires its primary to be eight days before any other in the nation.
This puts Iowa in a tight spot. It has a law that requires the caucuses to be at least eight days before any other voting, pushing the date to early January, or, as some have speculated, into mid-to-late December.
Although Gov. Chet Culver has promised to change the Iowa law rather than have the caucuses in December,that it made it to this point is ridiculous. It highlights how archaic and inane the current caucus system is. Aside from tradition, why are New Hampshire and Iowa the ones who get to pare down the candidates? They lack ethnic diversity-not a good cross-section of an ever-changing America.
We think Iowans take seriously their obligation to choose the best candidates. However, it's an outdated practice. Instead, let's make this year a call for change. University professor of political science Steffen Schmidt told the Daily this week that he believes the primaries process will have to be changed after this year, with possibilities including regional primaries or an Internet primary. As the meaning of the Iowa caucuses dwindles, we're disappointed, but we see it as a call for change. In the coming elections, a more equitable process would most benefit our nation.
Iowa State Daily, Iowa State University
The fight to stop violence in Darfur scored a victory earlier this month when the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution to send a force of 26,000 soldiers to the Darfur region of Sudan. However, with three weeks passing and the details of the resolution coming to light, the people of Darfur do not seem any closer to actual relief.
The resolution seemed like just the answer, but there is only one hurdle left - actually sending the U.N. force where they are most needed. According to BBC news Aug. 17, the unanimously passed resolution, titled the United Nations-Africa Union Mission in Darfur, would create a joint force falling under the direction of the current Sudanese government. The hope of the United Nations was to appear as not overstepping Sudan's political autonomy.
The most conservative of estimates put the death toll in Darfur at 200,000 with more than two million Darfurians left without a home or food. Yet the directions will be handed down from the same government responsible for letting, if not inspiring, this genocide to occur. National Public Radio's Weekend Edition Aug. 4 explained some of the more fine-print details of absolute absurdity within the U.N. resolution. For example, U.N soldiers are not allowed to take weapons from the Janjaweed Militia-those formally responsible for the violence. After four years of the worst kind of violence, the world's reaction is lacking. We are
coming into a big election year-look at what the candidates' stances are on foreign aid. Choose to hold our leaders accountable for actions in the global community.
Kansas State Collegian, Kansas State University
With schedule changes, Iowa caucus not relevant
An impending change in Iowa's caucus date stands to make the caucuses irrelevant. This is bad news for Iowans,
but, in reality, it's been a long time coming. It started when states such as Michigan, Florida and South Carolina decided to move up their primaries, hoping to grab a greater piece of the candidates' attention.
The move that broke the camel's back was South Carolina's, when, in response to Florida's move to Jan. 29, its GOP chairman moved the Republican primary to Jan. 19.
This forced a response from New Hampshire, whose primary had been tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22. Pundits have speculated that New Hampshire would hold its primary between Jan. 9 and 12, as a state law requires its primary to be eight days before any other in the nation.
This puts Iowa in a tight spot. It has a law that requires the caucuses to be at least eight days before any other voting, pushing the date to early January, or, as some have speculated, into mid-to-late December.
Although Gov. Chet Culver has promised to change the Iowa law rather than have the caucuses in December,that it made it to this point is ridiculous. It highlights how archaic and inane the current caucus system is. Aside from tradition, why are New Hampshire and Iowa the ones who get to pare down the candidates? They lack ethnic diversity-not a good cross-section of an ever-changing America.
We think Iowans take seriously their obligation to choose the best candidates. However, it's an outdated practice. Instead, let's make this year a call for change. University professor of political science Steffen Schmidt told the Daily this week that he believes the primaries process will have to be changed after this year, with possibilities including regional primaries or an Internet primary. As the meaning of the Iowa caucuses dwindles, we're disappointed, but we see it as a call for change. In the coming elections, a more equitable process would most benefit our nation.
Iowa State Daily, Iowa State University
Be the first to comment on this story