This is a(nother) encouraging sign. I wonder what Tony means by "international leaders"? Egypt's Mubarak backtracked on his promise to assist with getting UN troops into Darfur before he could get back home after the 61st UN General Assembly Meeting. He stopped off in Khartoum for hugs and kisses with his good buddy President Omar al-Bashir and to declare that Egypt's government supports the position of the Sudan on the troops issue.

If Tony and the EU along with the U.S. government can finally get the Russians and the Chinese onboard by convincing them to stop doing business with the Khartoum regime if it does not respect the UN resolution 1706, then we might get somewhere. Unfortunately the governments of Russia and China will continue to delay any meaningful action on Darfur as long as Khartoum can keep the oil and money flowing. Reduce or stop the flows of capital and oil and the GoS will have to cooperate or risk collapse.

I'm for dropping the hammer on the sucker (al-Bashir) myself, Jihad or no Jihad. There has to be a point where the international community and the UN draws the line, and acts of genocide against one's own people should be it.

Wow! I am really impressed with all of the concern and ideas and participation in this dialogue about the Darfur Crisis. You see Jürgen, Atlantic Review readers really do care about what is going on down in Sudan.

@ the pro-military solution folks...

It is clear to almost everyone involved with the civilians on the ground in Darfur and with the GoS that a non-Sudanese security force is needed to protect these people from attacks by their own government and the various militias. So let's not kid ourselves on this important point.

The EU countries are not anywhere close to committing troops for peacekeeping duties in Darfur other than humanitarian and logistic support people. In addition, the European public's support for military intervention in Sudan is hovering somewhere around ZERO. Do not even entertain the idea of European troops getting involved with desert warfare down in the Sahara and the Sahel; as very, very few countries in Europe have forces that are well-trained and equipped to handle this type of combat. Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples of how difficult these type of operations can be. The forces based at present in Djibouti are overwhelmingly U.S. soldiers, with a few other country's soldiers throw in to make it sound like a "coalition". I think that the French have had some forces in Chad for awhile in order to protect French interests in the region.

@ the negotiated settlement folks:

Many of us are familiar with Alex de Wahl's recent interview (Hat Tip: Jörg via a previous post) and this very knowledgable man makes some good arguments, as does John Prendergast and Eric Reeves and Samantha Power and many other experts on the crisis. But the Khartoum regime and Omar al-Bahsir have never really honored any settlements and agreements in the past (bloody wars and conflicts in Southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, etc. etc.) and they have no intention of honoring any agreements or UN resolutions now or in the future. So let's not kid ourselves about this either. The "rebels" in Darfur are not much better than the GoS, if at all.

As is the case in the South of Sudan right now, UN peacekeepers and outside assistance (intervention) by some key UN member states will be necessary to stop the violence in Darfur and help those people rebuild their lives and livelihoods. Of course the African Union has an important role to play in all of this, and I believe they have contributed a great deal already considering their limitations and will continue to be important players in making peace in Sudan. If only the Arab League member countries would make even half the effort that the AU under the leadership of Nigeria's President Obasanjo has made in helping to resolve this crisis and contribute money and troops... this will probably never happen. The Arab League is an important part of the problem in Darfur and across the Sudan. President Omar al-Bashir is their man in Khartoum, doing the Arab League's bidding in this part of Africa. Ask Mubarak or Moussa, they'll tell you so (from their deathbeds, maybe).

So, British PM Tony Blair calling together world leaders to come up with a united stand and plan of action for the crisis in Darfur ain't a bad idea if it brings some much needed results quickly. Whatever they decide upon in London, it will have to be a combination of the Hammer and the Stick with a few extra dollars thrown in for Bashir if he promises to be a good boy and go along with the program.

@ those who think that Americans don't care about Darfur:

Don't ever underestimate the will or commitment or intelligence of the American people. If there was any one nation that I would count on as being front-and-center in helping to find a solution to the present crisis in Darfur, it would be mine, the United States of America.

Name me 5 key political or civic leaders from Europe or Asia or any other region of the world that have been as committed to researching the problems behind the conflict, getting the word out before the world, and earnestly working hard to find solutions to this crisis as members of the U.S. Congress and the present White House administration, the American press and media networks, the U.S. business community, the religious community, U.S.-based NGO and humanitarian organizations, and the general American public have been.

Most readers from Europe cannot do it, because they don't exist in your country. There were less than a thousand participants in the Global Day for Darfur Rally in London last week. Don't ask how many showed up to the Berlin rally or the rallies from Madrid to Moscow as the press and TV news in Europe basically overlooked these low-attendance events. If I am wrong, please show me some evidence.

Yet in comparison today there are 10's of thousands of people marching in the streets of Manchester protesting against PM Tony Blair at the annual Labour Party Conference. The national priorities of these protestors in Britain are very clear for all to see. It has nothing to do with ethics and morals and human rights for all people on Earth, does it?

This just in from TIME Magazine online:

Sunday, Sep. 24, 2006
How to Save Darfur
By PETER BEINART

Genocide comes at inconvenient times. In 1994, the Clinton Administration was reeling from Somalia--a country it had fled after the deaths of 18 U.S. troops. So America watched as Rwanda's genocidaires murdered nearly 1 million people in 100 days. And then everyone began feeling bad. Bill Clinton flew to Rwanda to apologize. After reading an article about the genocide, George W. Bush reportedly scribbled, "Not on my watch!"

In hindsight, stopping genocide is easy. But in Darfur, where it is happening now, stopping genocide is brutally hard. A contingent of 7,000 African Union peacekeepers currently patrol the Texas-size chunk of western Sudan where government-backed militias are busy exterminating the non-Arab population. The African soldiers are decent and brave, but they are engaged in a sham. The militias menace villagers in front of the peacekeepers' eyes; Sudan's government steals the fuel they need to fly their planes. In the words of U.N. envoy Jan Pronk, "The people on the ground are just laughing."

In spite of a Security Council resolution approving a larger, tougher U.N. peacekeeping force, the government of Sudan refuses to allow Blue Helmets on its soil. When the Bush Administration sent its Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs to Sudan's capital, Khartoum, to persuade President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to admit the U.N. force, it was two days before he would even meet with her. Al-Bashir has a rather different plan for solving the problem: just before the Security Council vote, he launched a military offensive aimed at cleansing Darfur once and for all. The U.N. is warning of "a man-made catastrophe of an unprecedented scale."

There's only one way to save Darfur: tell Sudan it can either accept the U.N. force or face war against the world's most powerful military alliance. Though the U.N. can't fight its way into Darfur, NATO can. If it does, al-Bashir could end up following Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Liberia's Charles Taylor to a war-crimes trial at the Hague. Confronted with that prospect, al-Bashir might conclude that a U.N. peacekeeping force isn't so bad.

Unfortunately, genocidal dictators are generally not impressed by tough talk. Milosevic didn't abandon Bosnia until NATO bombed him for two weeks. He didn't abandon Kosovo until NATO began planning a ground invasion. No one knows al-Bashir's breaking point. To find it, NATO must first impose a no-fly zone over Darfur so Sudanese MiGs can't keep assisting Arab militias from the air. That's doable. A congressional expert estimates that it would require 12 to 18 fighter jets, probably French and American, based in neighboring Chad. If shooting down a few Sudanese planes (and thus eliminating much of the Sudanese air force) didn't make al-Bashir relent, NATO would probably have to bomb Khartoum. And while doing so, it would have to begin preparations for a ground invasion.

Read the complete article over at the TIME.com website before it becomes Premium content and you have to pay for access.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1538646,00.html

Note also that the African Union Peace and Security Council has announced from its HQ in Addis Ababa that it will increase its troop strength in Darfur to 11,000 soldiers and "operate under new rules of engagement" to better protect civilians. Reuters, the NY Times, and the Boston Globe have more on the story. Looks like things are heating up nicely back in Khartoum. It's about time.