First, the most powerful countries in the world are crap at making decisions when in comes to maintaining their own power. Let me point at Imperial Britain and the current US regime, which has massively undermined its power, as obvious examples of this.  They're also shit at negotiating the ownership of resources. Generally this involves giving them to people who fund and support people who are trying to destroy the most powerful countries.

Second, the result of their invading the middle east is, among other things, to make clear that we need to ask "what next"? We could, maybe, stop a genocide for a while by invading. What then? Occupy the area for a few decades? Split up the existing state into a few more?

Going into space is easy: that's just a problem of technology and money.

Rwanda might have been doable if we had intervened very, very early on when the government were busy whipping up the people into a frenzy.

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.

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

Reuters AlertNet: Russia criticises "hasty" UN resolution on Darfur (04 Sep 2006)

...

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the U.S and British-backed resolution was drawn up without proper consultations with the Khartoum government, which has argued that the U.N. mandate's goal was "regime change".

Lavrov said the decision to hand over the AU mission to the United Nations "should have been done in accordance with the basic rule of the U.N. which envisages that such a decision should be ... agreed upon with the government of Sudan."

"Unfortunately this resolution was taken in haste without continued consultation with the government of Sudan, while we and China at the Security Council had hoped for continued consultations. But this was not done," Lavrov said while visiting AU headquarters in Addis Ababa on Monday.

Russia, along with China and Qatar, abstained from voting at the U.N. Security Council on the resolution to create a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur last Thursday.

The resolution was passed nevertheless.

Ria Novosti: Lavrov blasts adoption of UN resolution on Sudan (04/ 09/ 2006)

Russia's foreign minister criticized Monday a UN Security Council resolution on Sudan, saying it had been adopted too quickly and so had angered the African state's authorities.

Under the resolution adopted August 31, peacekeepers will be deployed in Sudan's western Darfur region to stop clashes between government forces, Arab tribes and rebel groups representing the interests of native non-Arab population. Since the start of the conflict in February 2003, death toll estimates have varied from 50,000 to 450,000 and more than 2 million have been made refugees.

But Russia's Sergei Lavrov said, "Unfortunately, the resolution was adopted hastily without preliminary consultations with the Sudanese government."

But if I now went into Over-Generalise Mode, please slap.

I mean if civilians die as a result.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

So UNMIS has the mandate, but not the ressources to make a real difference...?


Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni

a) Sudan has the responsibility during all circumstances for the protection of civilians.

b) UNAMIS is of course also bound by international law to abide by humanitarian law

c) There is a legal basis for intervention

d) The invitation of Sudan is solely a diplomatic opening

However:
There seem to be some legal discussions wheter the resolution is a clear chapter VII or more like chapter VI and a half.
There is a trend, as seen in Lebanon and other, that one use the wordings and language of a chapter VII mission but in a VI resolution. Apparently the deal is, that this gives the force the possibility of pulling out if the missions turns out to be a disaster. That is a lot more difficult with a chapter VII mission, since you are almost legally bound to finish the job.

I am sorry that I am not able to give a clear answer. I am investigating more, and will hopefully return with a clear answer. If there is one.

For me though, it seems like a clear chapter VII.


Andreas The Oslo Blog - www.akiaby.dk

understand that this conflict, like most, is not a morality play of good vs. evil but of two rather unsavoury and chaotic sides, albeit with differences of degree, with one side a lot more powerful than the other.

Again, you want the US to bomb Khartoum and the EU to pick up the pieces?

There are two Chapter 7 resolutions empowering UNMIS already, 1560 and 1709, with authorisation to deploy almost 20 thousand troops. The troops could come from anywhere.

I hasten to add that we're still busy coming up with 15000 troops for UNIFIL to cover Israel's ass in Lebanon.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

Depending on your meaning of Europe, in what way was the Balkan mess "its own"? (Example: you interpret Europe to mean the EU, and so the mess would not be in the EU but in its "back yard", a problematic concept in itself) There are subtle ways in which Powell's Pottery Barn rule applies to the EU-12 and the Balkan Wars, but is that what you're thinking about?

See also this thread for a look a who is actually busy cleaning up messes not of their own making (the US deployment in Iraq doesn't count: the pottery barn rule applies).

In any case, in the 10 years since the war in Bosnia the EU has developed its Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Defence Agency precisely to address its failures in the Balkan wars. Some attempt has been made to learn from past mistakes, especially so that US bombing or troops is not necessary.

Who's cleaning up Israel's mess in Lebanon?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman