Handling of Darfur is a delicate matter

As the advisor of Golden West College’s Model United Nations, Margot Bowlby knows about how the U.N. operates. While Huntington Beach High School prepared for a visit tonight from the authors of “They Poured Fire on Us from the Sky,” a memoir of three Lost Boys of Sudan, the Independent asked Bowlby, an assistant political science professor, for her thoughts on the crisis.

It’s been seven years since the conflict erupted in Darfur, and the U.S. government has repeatedly labeled it a genocide. Yet the general impression is that the international community has done little, if anything, to stop the killing. First of all, do you think that’s an accurate assessment?

First, let’s clarify what you mean by the “international community.” I do believe that the U.N. Security Council has been slow to react to this situation, and that includes the United States’ position as well. The position of the Bush administration was weak, and I’m not at all confident that the Obama administration will focus on this.

As we know, China in particular and the Russian Federation (along with Vietnam and South Africa in the previous council) were reluctant to call this situation a “genocide,” which, of course, takes on a whole new meaning. And while an arms embargo was agreed upon by the U.N. Security Council, this embargo has, in my opinion, had little to no affect on the situation.

However, when you state the “international community,” I would add that several NGOs [non-governmental organizations] have been much more active in trying to bring attention to the situation and in trying to bring aid to the people most afflicted.

Why do you think the U.S. has taken such a weak position on Sudan — especially compared, for instance, to the government’s decisive response in Kosovo in 1999? Do you agree with those who feel there’s a double standard in dealing with humanitarian crises in Europe and Africa?

I do believe, in part, it has to do with geographic location and ethnic/racial ties. The international community and the U.S. have been, let’s say, “selective” in how they react to crises in the world. However, I believe there are other important factors to consider. I believe a more important factor is China. China, for obvious reasons, is opposed to economic sanctions on Sudan. China is a major economic player in the world as well as a political one. Another factor is the northern Sudanese ties with countries in the Middle East. So it’s not just an African problem.

There are also Chad and the Central African Republic to consider. And then there are internal factors that many dismiss. It’s a gross simplification to state that the northern Muslim population is opposed to the southern African population. For example, the southern African population is not united. There are numerous ethnic/tribal conflicts, some of which are enabling the government and some of which have formed their own militias.

So, while I do believe that there is no consistency within the international community (or with U.S. foreign policy), when it comes to humanitarian crises (or any crises, for that matter), I believe that it is much more complex than that.

At this point, how close do you think the Darfur crisis is to being solved? Is there an end in sight?

Good question, but I don’t have the answer. The arms embargo isn’t really working, so the armed conflict really isn’t over. And while the “new” government promises more inclusion and a resolve to Darfur, I don’t believe they have made great strides in either area.

The one point I wanted to raise in the previous question, but can now raise here, is that I support the work of NGOs and believe in their ability to raise awareness, funds and in many cases, bring about change. Many work without political or economic constraints, except to raise money and awareness. I’m of the opinion that they have and will continue to prove to be more beneficial in this increasingly interconnected world of ours — perhaps more so than the last century’s IGOs [inter-governmental organizations].

On the topic of raising awareness, how do you feel about local groups in America that are holding rallies or raising funds for Darfur? Can the work they do really make a difference for people over there?

It depends. I guess anything is better than nothing. However, it’s more of whom they are affiliated with. We both know that some NGOs use the money more efficiently than others. I also believe that some of the more high-profile individuals (George Clooney, Bono, etc.) also raise awareness just because of their popularity.

Look, NGOs are similar to social movements. And in order to be successful, they need resources, publicity, a cohesive ideology or purpose, a strategy to keep members involved and usually a charismatic leader. I believe that the Internet has also proven to be a useful tool in raising awareness, keeping people motivated to help and connecting people around the globe.