Introduction
Lire cette introduction en français
The intractable violence in Sudan's Darfur region has led to an international movement aimed at ending the suffering.
One strong position, represented in a guest column - "We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans?" - on allafrica.com is that the United Nations must send troops now, despite Sudan's rejection of that option. Another view is that strengthening the existing Africa Union force and extending its mandate is the most urgent priority.
CNN's Jeff Koinange, in Sudan, had to say, in a recent blog (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/), about the plight of the AU troops: "The United Nation's top diplomat in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, told us that some of the units have to cook their own food. How are you supposed to keep the peace when you're worrying whose turn it is to cook? They're also seriously under-equipped in terms of firepower. And the few helicopters they have don't even have enough fuel to fly troops in and out of difficult-to-reach places, the UN's top man told us...The bottom line, their commander told me: He needs twice as many troops, plenty of logistics support, lots of hardware and free access to the air, something the Sudanese government is completely opposed to. And to think that these are the soldiers that stand in the way of Africa's second genocide in a little over a decade. They don't appear to stand a chance."
What do you think? Should both approaches be pursued? Or neither? Is there an international responsibility to protect civilians caught in conflict? If the UN acts in defiance of a member state, what kind of precedent is set? What might be the implications? If no effective action is taken, how will history judge us?
