Stuck with a difficult assignment? No time to get your paper done? Feeling confused? If you’re looking for reliable and timely help for assignments, you’ve come to the right place. We promise 100% original, plagiarism-free papers custom-written for you. Yes, we write every assignment from scratch and it’s solely custom-made for you.
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Three forum responses 150 words each with works cited. Topic international relations, this topic is regarding the Darfur conflict.
To explain why Darfur has gone from impasse to impasse an examination must be made of the causes within conflict and matters outside of the conflict preventing resolution. This has been a conflict in which the African Union has been seen as powerless to stop. Meanwhile the United States has been reluctant to get involved with despite heavy lobbying at home due to their relationship with the government of Sudan. The United States has depended on the government of Sudan for intelligence in the war on terrorism. Also the memory of Somalia remain fresh in the minds of Americans to not intervene in another African civil war.
To really find a solution to this Bob Zaremba has suggested China could play a bigger role due to their relationship with the government of Sudan. In addition China is not mired in the sort of conflicts the U.S and NATO have been stuck in for years. However China has chosen a non intervention position to this matter. In addition according to Spencer Zifcak China prefers to use peacekeepers in a defensive role.
In addition to problems with outsiders choosing not to get involved the African Crises group notes the Government of Sudans dependency on paramilitaries. This can be very dangerous to take sides with paramilitaries or collude with such groups. This has created a case where not only are these groups attacking government troops and carrying out sectarian killings. As such until the government of Sudan stops this support and agrees to disarm the paramilitaries this problem will likely persist. Northern Ireland teaches us well the dangerousness of a government targeting one set of paramilitaries but not the other. Likewise collusion leading to assassinations. As such the crises groups solution to the problem is similar to what is contained in the Good Friday agreement on disarmament on these groups perhaps overseen by international monitors.
The question I pose to the class is could China having a hand in resolving this be a threat to the western world? Is China attempting to resolve conflicts in Africa where others have failed the right answer? Should this remain an issue for Africa to deal with as it has been?
The Darfur case study referencing the Sudan’s Darfur region and endless cycle of disorder and violence is based on many factors complicated by the region’s remoteness. This cycle of violence started in “2003 as Darfuri rebels from non-Arab communities rebelled against the Khartoum regime and the Sudanese government responded with a counterinsurgency strategy based on Arab militias, known as Janjawid, and attempts to disrupt numerous Sudanese opposition militias (2015, 3). The remoteness of Darfur led non-Arab inhabitants to rise against the government of Sudan due to neglect in February 2003 as outlined by the Darfur Conflict and Crisis Chronology outlining almost eight years of violence between various “black African communities, government of Sudan (GoS) forces, neighboring countries such as Chad, with African Union, United Nations (UN), and United States efforts at embargoes, mediation, and negotiations as clashes continued derailing peace efforts (2010).” Reviewing the chronology, it is not challenging to observe there are no real efforts to provide incentives or military forces to force both the Darfuri insurgents and GoS to a ceasefire and resolution of both sides grievances.
Similarly, to the Thai-Cambodian border dispute in which the United Nations is guiding both nation-states to mediate via the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN) the African Union’s African Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is the lead organization in mediating this conflict (Putra, 56).” The challenge in which these two organizations are involved in attempts at resolving the Darfur and GoS conflict is simply “AMIS does not have the capability to resolve the conflict requiring UN’s intervention with the consolidation of both organizations committed resources into a team known as UN-AU Mission in Darfur or UNAMID (Putra, 56).” To expand on the basic causes of the Darfur conflict is based on anti-GoS forces “hunt for economic interest to finance the rebel armed groups, inequality of wealth distribution, political representation at central government ethnic polarization encompassing poor governance, economic and cultural issues, ethnic hatred, and environmental issues such as desertification and scarce resources such as grazing land and water (Putra, 57).”
These outline the basis for the Darfuri conflict and intervention of two organizations under a consolidated effort which cannot ensure sustained periods of peace to further mediation or negotiations due to “three key challenges in an effective operation with the lack of co-operation and partnership of the government in mandate implementation, major shortfalls in several troop and police contingent capabilities, and the need for improved co-ordination and integration structures within the Mission and between the Mission and United Nations country team (Putra, 62).” Unfortunately, there have been no clear efforts to improve the mission beyond periods of media focus on the plight of Darfuri displaced persons. The UN Security Council has been unable to “develop a consensus around a new peace strategy and largely supports the untenable status quo as discussions are underway with the Sudan government on a possible UNAMID drawdown which lacks strong UN and AU support with a mission too deferential to Khartoum and systematically presenting a narrative of an improving situation divorced from reality, and frequent failures to intervene and protect civilians (2015, 1).” Darfur serves as a clear example of minimal outside powers intervention prolonging conflict and suffering without addressing the root causes and neither party fully committing forces to create conditions in which costs outweigh the benefits of conflict resolution.
You mentioned that “[t]his conflict is said to have been ethnically motivated since the nation is dominated by the Muslim religion. This eliminates the perception that the conflict is between religions…”.
This raises the question (at least for me) on whether there is a difference between ‘inter-ethnic’ conflicts and ‘tribal’ conflicts. In other words, is there a difference between ethnicity on the one hand and tribal identity on the other?