Peacekeeping & Darfur

Why the term needs to be mostly scrapped in the modern context.

Peacekeeping by definition requires in place ceasefires and the consent of all the parties in conflict to be implemented. This works very well in conflicts which are between states, such as Israel/Syria in the Golan Heights, and the conflict in Cyprus.

In many cases where individuals wish peacekeepers to be deployed, there is no peace to keep.
Darfur for example would not be conventional peacekeeping. Some of the rebel groups on each side on the conflict have refused to sign the peaceagreement.

Arguments for Deploying a UN force to Darfur

* UN Troops will be able to stop attacks against Refugees - Wrong, as Peacekeeping forces are not deployed with rules of engagement that include responsibility to protect (example: Rwanda)
* UN Troops will be able to force peace among remaining factions - Wrong, as force is imposed by an outside power, the only effect will be to unite the factions in opposition to UN Forces (example: Somalia)
* UN Mission will be less risky than Afghanistan - Dubious, two rebel groups have rejected the agreement, and Sudan's ability to reign in the Janjaweed is unproven. Protesters in refugee Camps recently attacked UN's top humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, his interpreter, and killed an interpreter deployed with the African Union. Osama bin Laden has called for the formation of a Muslim Liberation Army or Mujahaden to remove infidels from Sudan
* We have a responsibility to protect, to prevent genocide - This is problably the best argument for going. However, this argument can be attacked for perpetuating a paternalistic ideal of colonialism's "white man's burden", citing the UN Charter's call for a global village and adoption of notions employed by the west as tactics to justify intervention throughout the globe for the purpose of "keeping the peace".
* Darfur requires just a handful of UN Troops (Western Troops) which are up to a standard to actually do something about the conflict - This argument seems to be a good one, but lacks substance. African Union Troops with helicopters and armoured personell carriers have been unable to prevents continued conflict. Darfur is the size of France, is sparsely populated, and lacks available supplies of water. The amount of troops to cover such an area would be enormous. United Nations Troops would be contained by rules of engagement stricter than African Union Troops. This is because UN Troops would be peace keepers.

The NDP's position in Darfur is simplistic (deploy troops, stop killing). It seems logical. A mission of the size and scope needed in Darfur would likely be similar to the Somalia deployment. I remember that didn't go well. I will have to search Hansard to try to find the call by the NDP to pull Canadian forces out, and the similar call to put forces in a year or two before.

The Darfur conflict is reflected in multiple prisms. The most commonly cited is Arab and Black. Another is Muslim and Christian. I would say the most fundamental difference inbetween the two groups fighting(this is not to say there are only one group on each side), is that one side is nomadic herders, and one side is subsistent farmers.

These two groups (farmers vs herders) will always have a fundamental conflict unless agreements are made to share land, or divide land.

The best way to solve this problem is to actively support refugees leaving the conflict zone, along with "strong and effective measures" diplomatic language for sanctions. a United Nations force will be no more effective than an African Union force if it is to be deployed under the same circumstances.

As an internal matter for Sudan, the most appropriate action to take are actions which pressure the Sudanese government to solve the problem in a way acceptable to the international community. When there is a peace to keep, it will be appropriate to deploy a peace monitoring mission, much like the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (where a force has been deployed after a peace agreement).

Columnists has said that the NDP has a large pacifist contingent. http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Co...20/ 1590373.html
The deflection of the Afghanistan mission by the smokescreen of darfur is just a deception by the isolationist NDP which packs up when the going gets tough.

The Darfur conflict has been going on since 2003. If the NDP really cared, where were they calling for sanctions after resolutions passed in 2004. This issue is just popular at the moment, and they are using it as a distraction. Darfur may be an issue, but true problem in Africa is the Great Lakes War surrounding Zaire/DR Congo. Six million hgave died in that conflict. Where is the NDP on that issue.