[Steven_K]

What do you think needs to be done in Sudan? I would support a peacekeeping operation to prevent any further slaughter.

[CCJ]

I agree, though an African peacekeeping force, as a Western one would most likely be resisted more.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, I believe that it ought to be a native peace force rather than an imperialist one.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Umm... I notice that one of your options wasn't "shitloads of aid and international attention NOW".

Which probably would have been my vote.

As it is, I voted for a mixture. Because I don't really care about the ethnicity of any peacekeeping force. UN peacekeepers in places like Sierra Leone have traditionally come from non-African and African nations, and I see no need for peacekeeping apartheid. But peacekeeping would be part of my 'solution'.

The main thing is sensible and targetted pressure, the will to do something and money. Yes, money. No need to throw money at the problem, but if you care about saving hundreds of thousands of lives, governments need to devote well-targetted funding now.

[Boondock Saint]

I voted (Max prepare yourself)

Western peacekeeping force

And I will explain why.

- Though I personally support isolationalism it is painfully apparent to me that this doctrine will not be popular anytime soon.

- Western nations in general have more capable militaries, less issues with food reserves, even fewer issues with monetary concerns and are generally more capable then other regions.

- I would really like to see Germany and France actually do something OTHER then giving the US a hard time about Iraq. It would also be nice if Russia could do something or even China though these two I wouldnt really expect much help from. It would also be nice if Spain could find it in their heart to send their newly arrived troops somewhere that they will be appreciated and somewhere where they can do some good for some very needy people.

- A stablized Sudan is one step closer to a stabilized Africa. A stablized Africa is in everyones best interests.

Now why I didnt choose the others ...


Economic sanctions

-- How will starving a nation with starving people do anything but further starve the starving people? Surely the illigal market that brings weapons into and diamonds out of these nations wont be hindered by sanctions?

African peacekeeping force

-- Inept and corrupt. I could just imagine the escalation of the situation when the arab militias come into contact with African 'soldiers' ... everyone has a rifle or a machine gun and theres enough RPG's going around to take out an armor column ... yea that will be the solution.

Further stern warnings

- Pointless. Though I will say that this is the typical move by the western powers. 'Hey, lets talk about it some more this way while hundreds of thousands of people starve to death we can say at least we tried' ...

A western invasion, US style led by the French and Germans (ok, so it would be French and German style whatever that might be). Full on soldiers cracking heads and stopping the slaughters/imprisonments. If need be, topple the gov't of Sudan and install provincial mayors for a time being. As peace is established, food is delivered, medical needs are met then the peacekeeping forces can establish ground rules for a western style republic.

Thats right people, a western style republic. If they need us to bail em out then it means they cant do it themselves and they need a new system so thats what they get. Full on constitution established by the UN. Eventually a republic will form and if they later choose to change their own constitution via elected officials well then its their business.

If we arent going to be isolationalist then the only other way is to kick down the doors of those who oppose us and enforce our way of life on everyone.

*Said that last bit just to see a reaction*

[briansmith]

I think a Western peacekeeping force ought to be sent. It's really quite disturbing how little media coverage the situation in Sudan is getting here in the United States. You would think that a nation apparently so bent on humanitarian efforts and freeing people from oppression, dictatorship, and abuse would be very interested in helping free Sudan from this terrible situation. (That was the latest argument to defend the war in Iraq, at least.) Unfortunately, the government hasn't directed its media cronies to speak about the issue, so we have heard nothing. Heck, I barely even know what's going on over there.

[Boondock Saint]

Unfortunately, the government hasn't directed its media cronies to speak about the issue, so we have heard nothing. Heck, I barely even know what's going on over there.

You should have been watching FOX news then ... they were all over the Sudan situation for the past week and half or so ... since Powells visit. My local rag has been going on and on about for a long time now with the occasional 'this is lady-x, he baby died and her family starved' kind of stories ...

[briansmith]

You should have been watching FOX news then

I would rather kill myself.

[Napuljun]

Sudan must be broken up as a nation and borders built by an African peace-keepign force which divides races and different-religous orientated tribes.

[Clovis]

Sudan must be colonized by a European power who creates artificial borders lumping people together indiscriminately, then be left alone to handle the historically violent effects of Islamization on the uneducated populace .... oh .... already been done? Damn, back to the drawing board.

[Randomizer]

I don't think anything really can be done to improve the situation much.
The peacekeepers are not effective enough as well. They can only keep peace among those who are willing to keep peace themselves (but do not trust the other side that is). However these societies are very different from us, being on the level we were centuries ago. They have completely different lifestyles, vallues, etc. that the Westerners, do not understand. The peacekeepers can easily start figting one side or the other, become the targets of guerilla attacks that they evidently defend poorly against and which cause outcry back at home, repeat the Kosovo mistake and just reverse the situation or whatever. I do not think that the chances of them improving the situation in long-term are greater then causing additional trouble.

[N'Djamena]

I selected the African Peacekeeping force.

I agree with Steven_K about preventing further slaughter, but I don't think the West should get too involved.

[Pongetti]

- I would really like to see Germany and France actually do something OTHER then giving the US a hard time about Iraq.

The French sent 1,500 or so to the Congo a couple years back to patch up relations because the Americans wanted a non-we're committed to our illegal wars excuse to do nothing.

NOTE: As it stands currently, everyone in the Congo hates the UN.

Perhaps because they have half the number of peacekeepers as Sierra Leone had despite being 32 times the size so are seen as, well, useless. Anyway, the point is, do it properly or don't do it at all. Go in there guns blazing and save people, damn it! Accept that peacekeeping is a dangerous job and don't back out and give up on everything after a bad day.

Or do absolutely nothing. Hell, we ignored Rwanda, ten years on they're doing alright. They've even managed to take another country by force, almost did it twice. And they've played the victim's card just right so that nobody cares and so that half of you won't know what I'm talking about. I'm just going off of the odd story here and there but I don't believe Somalia has been as succesful.

My personal preference, UN backed peace force, made up mostly of African parties if possible.

[bradley]

there is a MAJOR problem with sending an african peacekeeping force, apart from the obvious standards issues.

the sudanese crisis is in part a religious one. Sending in africans would seem like a major bias to the Arab community in Sudan. This would inflame opinion when the first thing to do in a humanitarian crisis is calm the situation.

i think impartiality and genuine goodwill is best demonstrated blue a force of blue-berets.

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

Sorry, what has this got to do with anyone but the Sudanese anyway?

This is trés Iraq... western 'peacekeepers' my arse.

[bradley]

no, because i wouldnt have perceivced a UN force entering Iraq as imperialist (still illegal, though far, far less so, in my mind). And especially with a godforsaken country like sudan, which no occupying country could ever profit from apart from in terms of increased humanity.