Though I agree that private contractors are useful, they can only be useful in a political environment that allows their strengths to be used. It was hard to get past the quote above, considering the Govt of Sudan’s past record. It is one task to build a compound for the UN and a very different thing to provide security to a civilian population.

I’ve been reading articles on Darfur for some time, and those of other “human catastrophe zones” such as nearby Chad may be becoming. I don’t think any of the present approaches will solve the current genocide in Darfur. They are all too little, too meek and too badly defined. First, do the nations with the power to change things really care? If not, they should own up to it and say, “well, this is a tragedy, but that’s life – for those in that part of the world anyway – and there is not much we can do about it.” That wouldn’t be a noble position of course, but it would be an honest one. If they do want to do something, there should be a hard and effective policy. I’ve even come up with a name for such a policy – I call it the Doctrine of Enforced Humanitarianism (DEH).

It would work something like this: in any region or country where there is no rule of law, where there is systemic violation of the most basic human rights not to be tortured, raped or killed, where there is international recognition of these problems and recognition that these conditions will not or cannot be rectified by the government of the area, then the international community has a right, even an obligation, to go in and enforce these basic human rights – even at the point of violating national sovereignty. The last point is key because it gives an international force the authority to set up protected zones where people will be safe, and even be able to function and scratch out some sort of subsistence living. What to do if, in Darfur’s case, the Janjaweed attack?

Shoot them.

I’m serious. Let the Sudanese government protest, if they dare. They can’t stop the slaughter (I’m being charitable here since it’s more like they *won’t* stop the slaughter) so the world should. Of course, the U.S. being the biggest military power in the world, would have a disproportionate role in things. We should make clear we are not in there to take over the country under DEH rules – which would be carefully spelled out in the U.N. – but merely to preserve lives and provide stability in those regions where neither can be expected. Some form of village government might have to be set up by local leaders – provided they renounce violence and leave policing and protection to the international force. The DEH would go on as long as necessary.

A de facto “second state” might arise if it went on long enough. So be it. When a government fails in the most basic protection of its citizens, it renounces its right to govern those citizens, according to the Doctrine of Enforced Humanitarianism.

Anything short of a hard and uncompromising solution like this, in my opinion, is destined to fail.

So is this a case of the ends justifies the means? By solving this problem, by ending the genocide, people can say that something was accomplished, but what precedent would that set? What would tyrannical leaders, despots, and nations currently experiencing gross human right violations think of this solution? Is genocide is a case, that it should be solved by any means, and then sorted out after?

“Numerous private companies stand ready to provide the security that humanitarian groups have been demanding for years…” for the right price I guess, not because of their humanitarian principles. But then again, neither are the people who are committing the genocide.

whether or not these risks are great or small and what in action will certainly turn out.