Foreign policy and the aftermath of genocide

In 2003, tension ignited in the African state of Sudan between the northern Janjaweed and the people of the Darfur region. Many people from the Darfur area have been killed or driven out of Sudan to neighbouring Chad and the Central African Union as refugees. There have been debates in the international community about whether or not this conflict is genocide. President Bush has labelled the behaviour of the Janjaweed as genocide. Regardless of whether or not people in the international community believe it is genocide or not, many people in Darfur have been killed and are at risk still today in 2008. The main concern with the conflict in Darfur is that the international community has not intervened to stop the genocide.;The inaction of the international community raises many questions as to why states are apprehensive about intervening in a state when there is genocide. There are many reasons as to why a state might not intervene in genocide besides interest and international law. After reading the article "The Politics of Rwanda" by Jutta Helm, it was clear that Germany had another factor that kept it from intervening in Rwanda, its own genocide. After the death of about six million Jews under the governance of the Third Reich, the new German government made it a point to change its Basic Law to only allow Germany to use military means for defensive purposes. By studying factors that limit a state from intervening militarily in cases of genocide, these factors can eventually be addressed by governments so that these factors do not limit states in their foreign policy from intervening in the future.;In order to analyze how having a history of genocide influences a states willingness to intervene in modern cases of genocide research had to be conducted about genocide and foreign policy. Germany and Turkey were chosen as case studies of states that have a history of genocide in the twentieth century and the Untied States and Canada were chosen as states that do not have a history of genocide in the twentieth century. Case studies were chosen to be able to compare the foreign policy challenges of states that have a history of genocide in the twentieth century and states that do not have a history of genocide in the twentieth century.;The foreign policy approaches of the case studies were compared to the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The foreign policy approaches were broken down into soft power, which can consist of humanitarian aid diplomacy and international law and hard power consists of military means. Through studying and comparing these foreign policy approaches of the case studies it was concluded that states that have a history of genocide in the twentieth century are less willing to intervene militarily in cases of genocide than states that do not have a history of genocide in the twentieth century.