Why Hasn’t the United States Intervened in Darfur?

By: Malisa Dutson, Jean Kapkanoff

As the European Union considers sending troops to Chad to protect
refugees fleeing from the ongoing genocide conflict in Darfur, Bronx
residents aware of Darfur’s tragedy think it’s about time for the world to
take action.

“It’s never too late to intervene because there’s suffering going on,” said Ruth, who refused to give her last name. “With the many deaths that have occurred I don’t understand why we haven’t done anything sooner.”

During a meeting with French president Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday,
European Union (E.U.) Policy Chief Javier Solana concluded that the E.U.
may provide military aid to refugees in Chad until the arrival of U.N.
and African Union forces.

So far, little has been done by the international community to curb the
genocide in Darfur. With an estimated 200,000 dead and 2.5 million in
refugee camps, many Americans remain uninformed.

“I’m only aware of this because I am connected to the U.N.” said
Ismael Betancourt, president of the Bronx-based Multicultural Business
Institute and a former candidate for city government.

Some attribute the United States’ lack of involvement in Darfur to
imperialistic interest in other areas, such as Iraq. “They intervened
in Iraq. It would be better to have intervened in Darfur,” said Betancourt.

“It’s a capitalist country and it’s all down to the best way we can make a buck,” says Steve Hayes, a student at Lehman College.Many people feel that the United States believes there’s no need to intervene in Darfur because there would be no returns. However, although the United States would not benefit economically, innocent people in Darfur are dieing.

“Any country that we have something to gain from we are more likely to intervene in,” said high school teacher Sara Miraldi. “I would like to think they’d intervene to save lives, not for our own economic interest.”