Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Sudan will not permit any force in that has any real chance of stopping the genocide.

If a UN force enters the country with Sudanese consent, it will be a UN force too ineffectual to accomplish anything, just like the AU force.  It may even end up fighting the rebels instead.

We need a large, heavily-armed NATO-led force of 50,000 troops or more that is prepared to go to war with the Sudanese government.  The troops could come from countries as outlined below.

15,000 Africa
10,000 Asia, Latin America
 1,000 Canada
 4,000 Japan
15,000 EU
 5,000 Russia and Eastern Europe

These are admittedly not much more than wild guesses, but I think achievable with enough political will.

The US won't be able to send ground troops after the Iraq debacle, but might be able to help with logistical and air support.  The UK will have to withdraw from Iraq in order to do this, and Canada would need to pull out of Afghanistan.

China is the main buyer of Sudanese oil, but I think they'd back down if the rest of the world was really serious about intervening.

Darfur was an independent state in precolonial times and there is no reason for it not to be again.  After it is liberated, expect about 20,000 troops to remain for at least 10 years.

It was done in Bosnia.  It was done in Kosovo.  If it could work for white people, it can work for blacks.

by tyronen on Fri Nov 17th, 2006 at 01:07:34 PM EST
Why NATO-led? What's wrong with putting all those troops under UN command?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 17th, 2006 at 01:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually you can do both.  Keep in mind that this is an offensive, Korean-War style operation, not ordinary peacekeeping.
by tyronen on Fri Nov 17th, 2006 at 01:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is generally called an "invasion".
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 17th, 2006 at 01:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it is not peacekeeping.

Is China really the only obstacle in the way of a UN security resolution authorising this?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 17th, 2006 at 01:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
China has threatened to veto any Chapter VII resolution authorizing invasive force.  Their policy has been to give Sudan a free hand in exchange for its oil.

Although to be fair, Russia isn't really all that much better, and perhaps it's wishful thinking to hope they would join in what would be, indeed, an invasion.

But again, they've been getting away with this because they know that neither Western nor Arab countries really give a rat's ass black African victims.  Likewise, Russia backed Serbia for a long time, but retreated when it became clear intervention was finally going to happen.

Keep in mind that we are already too late to stop genocide in Darfur - it is a done deal, and over 400,000 are already dead.  The question is how to stop it from spreading into Chad and CAR and turning the whole region into flames.  We could have another Congo on our hands here very soon.

by tyronen on Fri Nov 17th, 2006 at 05:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sadly, and from a realist point of view, trying to stop the conflict from becoming a regional war has a better shot at being accepted as a rationale for intervention than stopping genocide. So maybe the best that could happen is that the situation in Chad and the CAR heats up enough to prompt the UNSC to authorise an intervention with teeth. The problem is that the situation reaally has to boil over for this to happen. It's pretty hopeless.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 17th, 2006 at 05:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series