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?