At least this sounds desperate and contradictory to me:
I still don't see how military power can achieve anything here without the agreement of a government that is supporting the people causing the probelm.
I mean, if the government is supporting the genocide, how likely is it that the government agrees to peacekeepers?
(And if the government were not supporting the genocide, there would not be a genocide, but "only" mass murder...) Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
So just despressed.
Area - Total 2,505,813 km² (10th) Population - July 2006 est. 36,992,490 (33rd)
I am not pushing for a military commitment. I just responded to some arguments made in the comments here.
I understand the problem you mention. Therefore I would like to see more diplomatic action: Carrots and Sticks.
According to the Investor Responsibility Research Center: Siemens AG and its subsidiaries have operations in the energy, telecommunications and manufacturing sectors of Iran. The company also has operations in Sudan's energy and telecommunications sectors as well as Syria's telecommunications sector. Due to the company's scope and type of involvement in these sectors, financial or reputational risks exist with respect to global security concerns that merit investor attention. These risks are compounded by Siemens AG's operations in more than one country and sector reviewed by the Monitor. The energy sector has potential security risks including the following: * Activities in this sector can generate significant hard currency revenues, particularly from energy exports, that are available for discretionary use by the government; * Certain types of power generation facilities and related components have potential military applications; * The governments covered by the Monitor often rely on foreign firms for advanced technologies, equipment, industry expertise and financing for large-scale energy projects; and * These governments and their state-owned entities or agencies are closely linked to the commercial energy sector. The telecommunications sector has potential security risks including the following: * Certain telecommunications equipment and technologies have potential military (or 'dual use') applications; * Certain types of telecommunications infrastructure, such as command and control technology, computers, communications and intelligence systems, are central to military capabilities; http://www.irrc.org/company/Siemens_SampleRpt.pdf
The folks running the divestment campaign believe that it works:
UC Divestment from Sudan - Position "The effectiveness of divestment from Sudan has clear and recent precedent. Talisman Energy's 2003 decision to extricate itself from operations in Sudan following widespread and sustained economic pressure by Western investors over human rights abuses committed by the government during the North-South civil war prompted two other international oil companies to sell their stakes in Sudan. Faced with the prospect of continuing loss of FDI, Khartoum signed the Naivasha Treaty with southern rebels shortly thereafter, paving the way for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South in January of 2005. Finally, divestment will do minimal harm to innocent Sudanese. The divestment criteria designed by the taskforce, and specifically enumerated in Section VIII, exclude any company engaged in the provision of goods and services intended to relieve human suffering or to promote human welfare. They also exclude sectors of the Sudanese economy, such as agriculture, which provide employment for large sectors of the population." http://www.inosphere.com/sudan/position.asp#proposal
Finally, divestment will do minimal harm to innocent Sudanese. The divestment criteria designed by the taskforce, and specifically enumerated in Section VIII, exclude any company engaged in the provision of goods and services intended to relieve human suffering or to promote human welfare. They also exclude sectors of the Sudanese economy, such as agriculture, which provide employment for large sectors of the population." http://www.inosphere.com/sudan/position.asp#proposal
I am not so sure about it since China is more and more important for Sudan. However, I think we often exaggerate China's economic influence a bit. Besides, if we are unwilling to send troops, then more funding and operational support for the AU (operating under a better mandate) as well as divestment should be the least we should do.
What do you propose, Migeru? Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
But, my depressing conclusion is that that is politically unlikely to be supported in most countries around the world.
if there is no peace to keep you cannot send in "peacekeepers".
"Peacekeepers" can have either a Chapter VI mandate for peacekeeping (=keeping the peace) or a Chapter VII for peaceenforcement (trying to create peace, where none exists).
The bluehelmets operating under a Chapter VII peace enforcement mandate are also called "Peacekeepers".
"Peaceenforcers" would be a better term, but the charta (?) and everybody only refer to them as "Peacekeepers". Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
