@ Migeru
Okay, but in what parts of Darfur do people live? Are they living spread out everywhere or are there some population centers? Sure, they don't live in cities etc, but...
What about creating "safe zones"?
What about seizing or destroying all helicopters and trucks used by the Janjaweed and their supporters. And seizing their fuel depots... Not easy, not perfect, but it makes a difference and you don't need a huge number of troops. You "just" need Chapter VII. It would be dangerous for those troops, no question about that.

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.

• Smart Sanctions.
  
• No Business Fairs. Sudan does not need no Mercedes Benz, and should not get oil drilling equipment for now.
  
• Divestment to put pressure on Siemens, Alcatel and others. Sudan does not need better telecommunications to better organize the genocide/mass murder, expulsions etc.

The Sudanese government will not stop the genocide as long as Western companies continue to help underwrite Sudan's economic growth.

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

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