Darfur Conflict

Stability in any parts of the world is a matter of core interest to the US.
I. The most important and immediate benefit the US can get from a once more peaceful Sudan is the overall regional stability it would bring. Geopolitical stability in every parts of the world is warranted for continuous prosperity of US economy. It may be argued that the US has no substantial investment in Sudan to be seriously affected, but the same can’t be said in other parts of the continent. A destabilized Sudan may lead to a domino effect bringing instability to the neighbouring countries of Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya and others. As Sudan and its neighbours are close to water, a destabilized region may affect the free and safe navigation of products that is extremely detrimental to global
trade, which the US is an active participant. It will also obscure US navy’s freedom of movement that will hinder our maritime monitoring.
II.
Direct interference would help re-establish our position in the international community as the hegemon. We were the hegemon after WWII till the 1990s and the main sponsor of new economic zones, navigating the seas through our countless naval bases all over the world, but recently, with the rising of the BRIC countries and overall general improvement of world economy, our superior position and unilateral control is in peril. Delivering solutions to the Darfur conflict will help reassert our authority. Also, if the US solved the problem in Darfur, we will have the credibility to form a government that is more democratic than its predecessor, build institutions that could foster social mobilization which has stronger enforcement that can make its government accountable and prevent another Darfur incident to occur.
The opposition may still argue that Sudan, economically speaking is insignificant and will still pose no serious problem to the US, but it should be remembered that the 1997 Asian financial could’ve been prevented by major economic powers but ignored because the contagion began in Thailand which was deemed economically insignificant. The aftermath was anything but
insignificant.

There are several opposing arguments to dismiss US interference, but the main issue is the right to sovereignty of any independent state.
I. Sudan is a sovereign state. Infringement of state independence, especially by Western powers like the US can be perceived as a way for the post-colonial imposition of Western standards. Sovereignty should be the prevailing norm of international diplomacy and therefore, interference in such domestic affairs is illegal, especially military sanctions. Article 2 section 4 of the UN Charter also states that all members should refrain from using threat or force that may hinder the territorial integrity or political independence of other states and thus, any kind of action US may partake to change the status within Sudan is a form of imposition to territorial independence. Additionally, the US intervention may only exacerbate conflict, and the US may abuse its power diverging from its original goals (Lecture, 4/3/17). Moreover, there’s no request or consent of the Sudanese government to interfere. Violating the principles of non-interference may lead to further instability or worse, a total war. Lastly, this raises the question on the usage of the SC and its structure because SC’s main purpose is to battle against threats to world peace and the Sudanese leadership, claims that “humanitarian emergencies” don’t threaten the core interests and peace of the international community.