Real Peace? Unlikely.

Well, it seems the leader of Sudan Omar al-Bashir has finally agreed to engage in peace talks with the rebels. The Sudanese President will be meeting with the rebels and the Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Although, are they really peace talks? I highly doubt it. Omar al-Bashir's government has been aiding the rebels with weapons. Why would he now try and have peace? In my opinion, the Sudanese President has only agreed to these peace talks to appease the nations putting pressure on his government. It's an act; a show. I truly would like to believe that there could be peace in Darfur, but I don't think this is the way it will happen. Omar al-Bashir denies aiding the rebels, but he does not deny that he believes the people of Darfur do not have to right to live in Sudan, or live at all. Considering that the rebels have not done as Omar al-Bashir has requested, it doesn't make sense for him to want a reconciliation. My question to you is: What do you think will come out of these talks? Think about it.

ENOUGH

The Center for American Progress and International Crisis Group are collaborating in a new initiative,ENOUGH: the Project to End Genocide and Mass Atrocities. The first in the series, titled "The Answer To Darfur" and featuring Gayle Smith (Center for American Progress), John Prendergast (ICG), and Colin Thomas-Jensen (ICG), calls for a "coherent and synchronized strategy." How can nations overcome global complacency to reach such a strategy? The featured speakers propose a "3P" Strategy: Protect the Vulnerable, Punish the Perpetrators, and Promote Peace.

"Protect the Vulnerable" is a common goal of Darfur activists. Punishing the perpetrators, one might argue, is important only after the people have been protected. Promoting Peace. What exactly does this mean? Weren't we promoting peace while thrusting the Darfur Peace Agreement in May 2006 at noncomplying rebels? Is this the same kind of peace promoted in 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed between the North and South? While both sides did sign, whether progress is being made is questionable, and in 2009, the South will have the opportunity to vote for secession.

Prendergast and Jensen recognize that long-term peace requires a sustainable, inclusive political process. To act consistently with our favorite phrase "Never Again," we must consider human rights first, of course. This must be followed up, however, with sound, long-term action to establish stability. Herein lies the real challenge.

Genocide and the International System

Hi everyone,

I'm Scott Moore, originally from Kentucky and currently a junior at Princeton University. Like most people, I see genocide as one of the worst reflections of humanity. But my academic interests in the international system- the nations, people, and institutions that make up our world- have given me another reason to fear the ravages of genocide and ethnic cleansing. These atrocities are the most serious of violations of the norms and rules that the international system relies upon to preserve the global peace. Quite simply, genocides degrade the entire international system. I'll be blogging about a lot of things, but I will be focusing on the effects of genocide and ethnic conflict from a wider international system. I hope I can provoke some useful debate about the harms that genocide inflicts on us all. Thanks,

As 2006 comes to a close, so too does the tenure of Kofi Annan as Secretary-General of the United Nations. He may well be best remembered by history as having faced the strains placed on the international community by the Iraq War and nuclear proliferation. But Mr. Annan should also be remembered for the doctrine that bears his name, asserting the right and responsibility of the international community to intervene when a state fails to respect the human rights of its citizens. The concept of responsibility is worthy of particular emphasis. As the world reels from the division of more recent conflicts, it is easy to forget that less than a decade ago the United States and NATO led an intervention in Serbia to halt ethnic cleansing in the province of Kosovo. The international community bonded together to effect regime in the name of human rights. Underpinning this landmark move was the Annan Doctrine, with its emphasis on the need for the international community to recognize gross human rights violations as a threat to all humanity. Today, as we confront such violations in Darfur, the world would do well to remember the precedent of Kosovo and the Annan Doctrine.

The government of Sudan and the United Nations have recently announced the tentative establishment of a joint UN-African Union force intended to halt the killing in Darfur and other regions of Sudan. While far too late for thousands of the genocide's victims, the announcement represents a renewed international commitment to stopping the violence. What remains to be done is to ensure that the force has the necessary capabilities to provide security and begin rebuilding a nation shattered by war. Here again we meet the responsibility of the international community, especially the United States and the developed nations, to support the peacekeeping effort in Sudan. It is a responsibility that is not without urgency: the suffering of the Sudanese people is long-standing, and the threat of wider conflict in the Horn of Africa looms. Though it seems at times far-removed, conflict in Sudan is part of a tangled web of geopolitical interests that include arms, oil, and the fight against terror. Peace and security in Sudan is a matter of global responsibility.

The suffering of the Sudanese people ought to be reason enough for the United States and others to do their part to stabilize and rebuild Sudan. But it is the effect of this suffering on the international system that offers an equally compelling reason to act. As long as regimes can reasonably expect the international community to shirk its responsibility to hold them to account for the treatment of their people, the threat of genocide and ethnic cleansing remains. This most wretched of stains on the human conscience also threatens the rights and freedoms of people everywhere. Today's interconnected world depends on global systems to provide security and stability. By failing to apply this system in Sudan, the world's governments bring the threat of ethnic violence that much closer to the doorsteps to their own people.

Poor nations will supply the bulk of the manpower for the new peacekeeping force; the United States and other developed nations must be prepared to provide funding, intelligence, logistical support, and political muscle. It is a small contribution that faces down an enormous threat, and a responsibility that is shirked at the peril of all humanity.