Darfur

"Foreign schemes against our country will not stop but if we close our ranks and be determined no foreign soldier will be able to set foot on our lands no matter what the reasons may be. " That's a quote from Sudanese President Omar Al-Basheer. What I'm trying to figure out is how one safely intervenes in a country whose government is so strongly opposed to your assistance? I suppose it's probably not possible. It seems inevitable that the UN is going to lose people. So will they pull out like they did in Rwanda, or will they get a backbone and actually stick around when things get messy? How does one ignore 180,000 dead bodies since 2003 anyway? It's not like your standard world peacekeeeping organization can just miss that. But the UN seemed quite content until fairly recently to put the minimal effort into this crisis. As it stands, they're moving, albeit slowly, but they're still doing that pesky "I don't know if we should really call it genocide" thing. All in all the world has taken a step in the right direction since the Rwanda incident, but it was a baby step on a journey of a hundred miles. As for what's happening in today's forcast: According to UN meeting notes Annan is "troubled" by the security issue in Chad (now Darfur refugee central), Annan is "deeply troubled" by violence in Chad, the ambassador from China "expressed deep concern" in regards to Darfur and sincerely wishes Sudan and Chad would check over those pesky peace agreements they should have rotting somewhere in their inboxes, and Annan states that he hasn't gotten around to getting in contact with the Chadian President "but was PLANNING to have a conversation with the Chairman of the African Union." I suppose that last part will have to wait though because the UN also took the time to note that "[Tomorrow is an official holiday at UN headquarters. The briefing will resume on Monday, April 17.]"