In reaction to the Obama Administration’s recently released policy on Sudan, the Cornell International Affairs Review (CIAR) hosted a panel of professors last night to analyze the situation in Darfur.

After Mitchell Alva ’10, president of CIAR, introduced Prof. Nicolas van de Walle, J. S. Knight Professor of International relations; Prof. Salah Hassan, director of the Africana Studies and Research Center; and Prof. John Weiss, history, each professor addressed the new policy based on their academic and personal perspectives.

In his introduction, Alva explained to the approximately 70 attendees that President Obama’s new policy in Darfur that seeks engagement is “contentious and returns us to classical international debates between hard and soft power.”

Van de Walle, the first panelist, explained two different “doctrines” for humanitarian intervention. One doctrine dictates that a country should only violate another country’s sovereignty under extenuating circumstances such as genocide. The second doctrine, which van de Walle referred to as the “Responsibility to Protect Doctrine,” condones intervention in response to many human rights violations less severe than genocide. International diplomacy: Cornell professors participate in panel discussion sponsored by CIAR, “Intervention or Diplomacy?: The Obama Administration’s Approach to the Sudanese Conflict.”

Although Van de Walle described President Obama’s new policy as “brilliant,” he also suggested that it is a much more accommodative approach to the Khartoum government than the “tougher” message that the President expressed during his campaign.

“The virtue of engagement … is paraded throughout the document,” Van de Walle said in reference to the policy, which was released Oct. 19. However, the policy also says that the Khartoum government needs to prove its “good faith.” According to Van de Walle, the Sudanese government can prove such intentions by allowing the upcoming election to go smoothly and by granting Southern Sudan independence.

“I am extremely skeptical,” Van de Walle added. He explained his skepticism is based on the United States’ inability to threaten Sudan. The European countries do not seem to care about the Darfur conflict, and since the war in Iraq, “U.S. diplomacy is highly degraded,” he added.

After Van de Walle’s conclusion that the Obama has no options in its approach to Sudan, Weiss presented a much different perspective on the situation. He advocated a plan that included “serious military intervention.”

Weiss’s analysis, as he explained, was based on his particular background — studying genocide and working for NGOs trying to prevent genocide. Alyssa O’Connor described his presentation as the “humanitarian perspective.” For example, he described an image of a mosaic, whose tiles represented different cultures, ethnicities and countries. He also stressed that victims victims should feel that they are heard and that they are not alone.

Weiss explained that he lost all faith in the U.S. policy in the region in 2005, and thus, did not formally address the new administration’s policy.

As the final speaker, Hassan, who is originally from Sudan, provided his personal understanding of the conflict.

Hassan criticized the Obama administration for having no unique approach to the conflict. He said that President Obama’s approach is just a continuation of both President Bush and Clinton’s policies.

To Hassan, the United States is an empire. He accused the U.S. of colonialization, slavery, murder and having a “terrible history of foreign policy.” Hassan said that the U.S. always helps “the worst regimes” and is full of “contradictions and hypocrisy.” For example, the U.S. refuses to participate in the International Criminal Court and therefore has no legitimacy when it calls for the President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir’s arrest.

Hassan then criticized the wording of the policy that relates countries to kids receiving cookies, smiley faces and gold stars. Such language equates third world countries to children, according to Hassan.

“It is racist at the core ... it degrades them,” he said.

After further elaboration and criticism of the U.S. and its patronizing policies towards third-world countries — Sudan in particular — Hassan advised that the U.S. “transcend this arrogance of Western culture” and try to listen and understand the wants and needs of the Sudanese people.

CIAR board members said that they invited Hassan particularly because of his unique views and explicit way of expressing them. “I think that it is really interesting to have conflicting views” said Cecilia de Lencquesaing, vice president of CIAR. “And [the panelists] were civil, which was great” she added.

“Hassan argues for a position that few academics are willing to take, and though I don’t endorse it, it raises the level of discourse and analysis on the topic,” Alva explained.

Kristine Kim ’10 was upset that there was no discussion about child soldiering. “Child soldiering is what makes the Sudanese conflict particularly unique,” she said. She also thought that “the discussion could have been more comprehensive.”