Lyman on Politics vs. Intervention
Princeton Lyman -- a former U.S. ambassador to Nigeria and South Africa , former Assistant Secretary of State -- on Minni Minawi, SLA, JEM, and the rest of the rebels:
Let's be honest. The rebel groups are no great shakes. They've committed humanitarian degradations. They've attacked food convoys. And sometimes their conflicts for power have interfered with the peace process. So there's fault on both sides in terms of what the situation is today.So, does he have a problem calling it "genocide"?
No, I don't. But I also get uneasy that the debate over genocide becomes a debate without action. We always thought that if something was finally designated as genocide it would trigger the (United Nations) Genocide Convention and the international community would have to act. What we're finding is that in itself doesn't define what has to be done or what can be done. Whether it's genocide, or crimes against humanity, or war crimes, it's a horrible humanitarian situation that needs to be addressed.Is armed intervention or increased diplomacy the answer?
This is not a situation that lends itself to a kind of military solution because of the vast territory involved, the ability of rebels to fight in a variety of ways. So the political process remains important...People have called, in various op-eds that you may have seen, for military action by the United States or by NATO. I'm very doubtful that that's possible. I do think we can make this a larger issue with China. And I do think we ought to make it a larger issue with the Arab League, which is supporting the positions of the government.

Commentary
J says:
Political manoeuvring is undoubtedly necessary, but practically what will be done if the AU pullout in Jan 07? Perhaps the deployment of a UN force in Chad - hours rather than months away from action -as advocated by the Aegis Trust-will act as a suitable dterrent for the Sudanese governement. Any thoughts?