Based on your understanding of both the ongoing conflict in Darfur and past international responses to genocide, what do you think should be done to help end the violence? Feel free to respond to other peoples' posts, provide counter-arguments, or pose new solutions.

The US should act via economic sanctions

 Since the U.S. declared 4 years ago that the violence in Darfur is in fact genocide I think that the U.S. has a certian amount of obligation to act.  The international community and the UN has not made any progress in ending this genocide.  Every time peace talks are in negotiations or the Sudan agrees to allow UN peacekeeping troops in they quickly deny that they agreed to any international policy.  President Bush has been threatening Strong Economic Sanctions on Sudan for a while now.  Just two days ago he gave a speech at the Holocuast Museum warning Sudan once again that they must stop this violence or else the U.S. will impose economic sanctions on the Government of Sudan as well as indivdual perpatrators of the violence.  I think that the U.S. needs to stop giving warning, which we've been doing for years now, and take action.  Economic sanctions is a good way to make the Sudanese government realize that we are serious about stopping this genoicde.  I don't think that Economic sanctions alone will magically stop the violence but perhaps it will put so much pressure on the government and the economy that they will have to start cooperating with the international communty and will finally allow UN peacekeepers in and come to the table to start to come up with peaceful resolutions.  While i think it may be a bad idea politically for the U.S. to send troops to Sudan because of it's Arab government and our position in the Arab world right now however I do feel that some unilateral action may need to be taken in order to protect the people of Darfur and stop the violence.  With that being said I don't know what other country would go into Sudan.  Right now I say we need to impose Economic sanctions immediately and strongly push for peacetalks and getting peacekeeping troops into the country.

I highly agree with the entry above, the U.S. needs to stop threatening to impose economic sanctions and actually do it. In a recent Washington Post article, Sudan said that it would not respond to "Western blackmail." But, I think that if the U.S. actually did impose sanctions this would definitely make a huge difference. If a country's economy is disrupted, and it is not recieving large amounts of aid from other countries, it will have to make a change in order to function. So, I think this is definitely a solution and will let Sudan know that the U.S. is not fumbling around, but confident in what it says. The Washington post article also brought up the point that the political problem needs to be solved in order to solve the crisis. I agree with this thought, however in order to solve a political problem, there needs to be a very effective method, which could be challenging for the international community to do. I think that if more awareness was brought to the Darfur genocide and people cared more about it, there would be a lot more pressure for the international community to make stronger actions, which would then impact the Darfur genocide and make a difference.

As it has been mentioned before, I find it very hard to see how the US has declared this to be genocide, just like Rwanda, but fail to do anything.  With all the apologies that have happened since the inaction in Rwanda, that US needs to take some sort of action.  Whether it be through the UN, AU or unilaterially, something needs to be done to rectify past mistakes.

Call for multilateral action

I agree with both ideas to an extent.  While economic sactions would make the biggest difference, and hopefully bring the atrocities to an end, I think this is a perfect time for the world community to come together as a whole and make a stand.  I don't mean to come off as saying that numerous countries can join together and everything will be ok, but I think it is heinous for "1st World" countries to stand back and watch.  Should the USA be the moral and ethical judge of the world, absolutely not, but I find it difficult to imagine how any country today, or in the past for that matter, can not take action.  In saying all of this, I simply do not have an answer.  Economic sanctions would work the best.  A military force would also work, but who would supply the troops?  Furthermore, how will any of this come to fruition?  What about the formation of some sort of worldwide genocidal tribunal that had worldwide jurisdiction?  Could that ever be a possibility?

Economic sanctions, which have so far dominated this discussion, are a viable option, but the structure of the UN presents a significant challenge to passing sanctions through that body.  China has strong economic ties to Sudan, especially their oil markets.  Resolutions that are passed by the security council have been watered-down to a point of meaninglessness.  China, as a permanent and veto wielding member, has a lot of power to limit the scope of sanctions.  To get to Sudan, then, one must in some way get to China in order to pursue economic sanctions from the UN.  Yes, the US can act independently, and it is clearly arguable that we should.  However, with our bruised international reputation, gathering support from other countries does not seem as likely for our sanctions as it has in the past.  Additionally, with an ongoing military operation in Iraq, the US seems even less likely than ever before to commit troops.  Is the situation hopeless?  No.  The recognition of genocide and a current president using the infamous "g-word" is legendary.  Yet there is little tangiable action from the administration.  The challenge now is moving from rhetoric to results. 

I agree with all of the ideas mentioned above.  Economic sanctions appear to be a viable option at this point and the idea for the international community to recognize the crisis and to confront the conflict in Sudan.  One BBC news article posted a few days ago describes how the Rolls-Royce company decided to leave Sudan because of the crisis.  The firm had been providing services to oil producers in Sudan for a number of years so the decision to pull out serves as an example to other foreign companies to show how "their operations are helping fuel the world's worst humanitarian crisis."  One such group called the Sudan Divestment UK pushes for businesses to sever their commerical links in Sudan so in a way, economic sanctions are somewhat being enforced yet there still are a number of foreign companies present in Sudan primarily due to oil.  So how can the U.S. address the crisis in Sudan?  Many of the ideas above suggested for economic sanctions and it should at this point.   The U.S. should carry out economic sanctions and push for an international peacekeeping force to be present in Sudan while addressing the international community how dire this situation is and requires the attention and cooperation of the entire international community to find a way to end the crisis.  The U.N. needs to be pushed to action and to commit rather than deny any sort of agreement to international policies and most importantly make peace rather than keep the peace. 

You know, I'm really not sure that I agree with the economic sanctions argument.  Economic sanctions are all well and good, but historically, when have sanctions ever stopped genocide?  I think that the US is in a difficult situation, because we obviously don't want to intervene with a military force- after Iraq public support for any sort of additional military action would be virtually non-existent- however it seems that armed military intervention has been the only successful solution to genocide.

This might be way off target, but after thinking about what a classmate said on Wednesday, I think the best efforts put forth in solving this Darfur crisis are going to need to be creative ones.  Policy interventions, threats of economic sanctions, and other bureaucratic ideas have thus far either failed or never materialized into anything other than just words with no action.  Perhaps the answer lies with a more creative, proactive generation--ours.  One could argue that the older one gets, the more resigned and complacent they get, particularly when dealing with world issues.  What if the international community, or at least the big countries like the US, England, France, Germany, etc., boycotted the Olympics unless the genocide in Darfur comes to an end, or unless proactive action positively impacts the country's state?  What if the international community could organize a mass protest on one particular day demanding a collective resolution from the international community, from those in power, and from those with the power to do something?  There must be something that WE can do to influece the laziness and the excuses of our resigned government and the resigned world leaders of the international community.  Any proactive idea to make a difference is better than nothing, so long as we act on it.