• Wikipedia: Darfur conflict
• War through the eyes of a child
• Washington Post: “Sudan Says No as U.N. Backs Force For Darfur”

The original idea of peacekeeping was to physically separate two warring sides – thus, peacekeeping applies to interstate warfare. India and Pakistan, Israel and the Arab states were the first UN peacekeeping missions (and those conflicts continue). It is less clear how effective peacekeepers can be in an insurgency, where lightly armed forces from mostly Third World countries with no interest in a conflict must act as an occupying power, distributing aid, fighting crime, mediating disputes, etc. Relatively few casualties need to be inflicted to drive peacekeepers out in such cases. In Somalia and Sri Lanka, for example, peacekeepers found themselves in a “hot” counter-insurgency, and, backed by little political will, lost out to inferior but more determined local forces. Therefore, regional forces with political interests at stake are more effective in such missions.
In the 1990s, genocide or attempted genocide took place in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the international community failed to intervene. The reasons why, in my opinion, are very well explained by Philip Bobbitt in The Shield of Achilles, and expose the weakness of the society of nation-states. But that isn’t the focus of this post – I’m supposed to be discussing Darfur.

The Darfur conflict, which has been called a genocide, pits tribal militias of Arab Muslims against black people – mostly Muslims – in Western Sudan. The Sudanese government is weak, corrupt, and influenced by radical Islamists. Sudan was once a refuge for Osama bin Laden, between his times in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. But it has proven impossible for the international community to organize an effective response to Sudan’s endorsement of genocide. The current African Union peacekeeping force is a token effort, unable to take effective action against the militia. So now the Security Council has authorized a larger force of 20,000 peacekeepers. The problem is, they need Khartoum’s consent to send them in.

What happens next? If there is any will for intervention, or if negotiations succeed, peacekeepers might get sent in. However, Muslim groups have promised to declare jihad against any UN-backed mission. Sudan hasn’t previously been known for suicide bombings, but most suicide bombers come from countries where foreign troops have been deployed. Suicide attacks, IEDs and other strategies perfected in Iraq could be deployed against Western peacekeepers, and they will probably succeed, given the international community’s lack of will for dealing with the conflict.

An escalated war in Sudan could also have consequences for oil production in Eastern Sudan, which could invite Chinese intervention – China has apparently supplied Sudan with massive amounts of arms, including helicopter gunships and anti-tank missiles, to keep its oil fields secure.

Posted by Phil on Sunday, September 3rd, 2006 at 8:28 pm.