by Eric Fincher

Created on: June 16, 2009   Last Updated: June 20, 2009

Bringing peace to the southern region of Sudan, known as the Darfur region, is more complicated than having United Nations Peace keepers on the scene.

The Sudan, like many parts of Africa, is a land of vast, as well as diverse, cultures and traditions. In addition, the area appears to be without law or government, meaning the region is a "no mans land" in essence. Through out history, these kinds of areas have proved time and time again to be difficult to bring peace. An example of this is Somalia.

Somalia is a land ruled by thugs and warlords who care very little for the well being of the country. Much of this attitude can be traced to the tribal nature and history of the region. When the U.N. and other aid organizations made an attempt to bring food and medicine to the people, supplies continually fell into the hands of those who needed it the least: the warlords. Warlords and their supporters would then sell the supplies on the black market, and then turn around and buy guns.

According to Global Security.org, 350,000 to 1 million people in Somalia lost their lives in a bloody civil war that ravaged the country for more than three years. Although there are some differences between Somalia and the Sudan, there are also many similarities when it comes to the role the U.N. can and can't do in the region.

Another variable is, the Sudanese government sees this whole thing as an internal affair and has, on several occasions, refused outside help. Since Sudan is a sovereign nation, it is their right to refuse aid from outside organizations. This, of course complicates things. If an aid organization doesn't get permission from the government to enter the country, the organization runs the risk of being detained by the military if they enter illegally. They also run the risk of being kidnapped or being killed. On the other hand, if the organization decides to turn all aid disbursement responsibilities to the local government or internal aid organizations, they run the risk of aid falling into the hands of the wrong people and slipping into the shadowy realm of black markets.

The problem is, once the U.N. looses control of the aid, it loses all control. The other option is to send U.N. supported peacekeeping troops into the region. Lets just say, for the sake of arguing, the Sudanese government grants permission to the U.N. and allows foreign peacekeeping troops on their soil. What happens if they (the U.N. troops) encounter hostile militia men? Do they risk getting into a shoot out, or do they let the militia raid the aid trucks and continue their campaign of raping and pillaging? A gun fight would be bad for U.N. peacekeepers because on most occasions, they don't have loaded guns. Proof of this is what happened in another African nation called Rwanda. Not to mention what's currently transpiring in the Congo.

Sending U.N. Peacekeepers into Darfur is not the answer. I believe their presence alone is not enough. Since some of the violence is being carried out by the Sudanese military, in many cases, this only complicates the situation. There's always the possibility U.N. Peacekeepers could be seen as working for the "enemy," thus thrusting them into a civil war on the wrong side.

In order for peace to be obtainable and for a legitimate peace plan to work, the Sudanese government would have to put an end to the violence, not only by government troops, but by government backed and non government back militias as well. All parties would have to agree to some sort or peace deal or cease fire. They also have to want peace. That, of course, is the scenario that has eluded us all

Learn more about this author, Eric Fincher.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.