United States Intervention In Darfur

Unfortunately, when states engage in intervention, it is rarely for humanitarian purposes. In many cases, national interest transcends international law in order to pursue economic profit from land or natural resources, oil in South Sudan’s case. R2P’s moral goals to bring peace, justice, democracy combined with weak institutional frameworks resulted in the United State’s and Britain’s’ justification of the invasion of Iraq. There are no authoritative bodies, but many unclear procedures and instructions, especially when determining what are atrocities and which constitute international intervention. The reluctance and indecision of states to interfere in Darfur in 2004 encompass the lack of autonomy of the doctrine. Despite saving lives, even
if intervention does ultimately lead to a stable and prosperous democracy, intervention is not always the right choice (Evans and Sahnoun, 2002). Not only is the weak framework and manipulation a barrier for a successful intervention, but also international actors that don’t benefit. Russia and China are key players in the UN’s Security Council and can make use of P5 veto that has the power to halt or undermine progressive plans imminently blocking discussions on interventions and sanctions. Russia and China would prevent the success of any humanitarian missions because they strongly oppose to sanctions against Sudan. This is because China imports 80% of Sudan's oil and has guarded economic interests in the nation while Russia has sold arms to Sudan in the past. These compounding factors make the possibility of military intervention impossible.