Don't Intervene in Darfur: Let the African Union do it
Excerpt from his opinion piece at Reason April 13, 2006 [hat tip PoTP] entitled Don't Intervene in Darfur: Let the African Union do it:
"The neighboring African countries recognize what is at stake. Although no one has known for certain what the United States and NATO might do, this uncertainty did not stop Nigeria and Egypt from sending peacekeepers to Darfur last year. ... Leaders in Chad, Kenya, and even Libya have expressed a willingness to help resolve the conflict.- - -
The deployment in Darfur is an important test case of the African Union's credibility. Given the many urgent demands on American and European troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, the United States and its allies should do nothing to discourage Sudan's neighbors from taking the initiative; unfortunately, that is exactly what NATO involvement would do."
UN resources and helicopters
In his blog entry April 7, 2006 Jan Pronk, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Sudan and Head of UN mission in southern Sudan, writes:
"The text of the so-called Enhanced Humanitarian Cease Fire Agreement which seems to emerge from the present talks is much better than the D'Jamena cease fire agreement of May 2004. However, it is also more complicated, because of the zoning of positions, which have to be verified, and the introduction of buffer zones and corridors between the zones, which requires checking and monitoring of troop movements. I am afraid that the African Union peace force in Darfur, given its present size, strength and composition, will not be able to carry out that task. Success in the talks may breed failure on the ground. The only way to avoid a new failure is to bring a more robust force to Darfur. In my view that can only be a UN force."- - -
AU in Darfur needs bolstering
Apr 14 2006 NATO not UN should be protecting Darfur - Annan says a UN force should be sent to Darfur.