Sudan and South Sudan on the Brink of War.

South Sudanese border towns were bombed by Sudanese planes today, on April 23rd, 2012.

CNN Source
Huffpo Source

The situation in North and South Sudan is rapidly worsening. Just days after the United Nations ordered the South to remove its troops from the disputed Heglig region, several towns in South Sudan, all close to the border, were bombed in a violent air strike. Witnesses report several casualties, including at least two children.

It's likely that yet another crisis in Sudan. If war breaks out, should the United Nations or individual countries be involved? Is it the responsibility of the world to prevent warfare between developing nations?

Given the very real possibility of genocide occurring (perhaps by either side) I think that the world should be involved. This isn't a domestic dispute any longer, Southern Sudan has won it's independence and is now protected (and subject) to international law which should mean intervention from UN.

International law which should mean intervention from UN.

I don't mean to sound like a prick or anything, but "Good Luck with that."

The West is basically broke and doesn't have the means to engage in such things, while Russia and China are likely to either veto any attempt or sit back and do nothing.

It would be nice if humanitarianism would triumph for a rare time over geopolitics, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

The UN already has a mission within Sudan though; relocating those troops would not be terribly difficult to exercise and surely they could claim it within the already stated mission and not requiring additional legislative action on the part of international diplomats.

That's true, though it begs the question of whether or not they have enough stationed to exert enough power to force a ceasefire. And the terrible two will raise a stink over it anyway.

What makes international intervention difficult on a practical level is that neither side is quite blameless, and in fact, before Mr. al-Bashir began making asinine statements conveying his desire to "liberate" South Sudan, a fair amount of international sympathy was on the side of Sudan. It must be said that, despite a fundamentally unfair partition of oil revenues, that the South did escalate the conflict by making an armed seizure of oil fields in the Heglig region. It's not as if this is Libya or Syria, where we can point to an actor/leader that has behaved in such a grossly malicious fashion that intervention is not only understandable, but merited. Instead we have a blood feud between two interested parties that requires, unfortunately, a more nuanced solution. I think the best case scenario would be to have a large presence of UN Peacekeepers on the border that are sufficiently armed, and with flexible enough Rules of Engagement that they can retaliate militarily if provoked. As GWN pointed out cynically, though correctly, this will not happen. Realistically a deployment of peacekeepers will require ratification of the Security Council without being vetoed. Realistically, based on China's ambivalent or even supportive policies towards Sudan, I can't believe that they would abandon their non-interventionist policies on the African continent. So, I tend to think China would veto any such motion.

Maybe not; it depends on whether or not it's in their interests. There's oil in Sudan and China is quite the hungry beast for it. Canadian oil sands can't be their only source.

Originally Posted by Khal Drogo

Maybe not; it depends on whether or not it's in their interests. There's oil in Sudan and China is quite the hungry beast for it. Canadian oil sands can't be their only source.

Sure. And there's no harm in trying the Security Council route at this point, particularly if they can somehow redeploy the UN mission already present into a meaningful position along the border. Indeed, it is in China's interest to ensure that conflict in Africa is contained, but this is also contrasted with a policy of non-interference and a history of close ties with al-Bashir's regime. My best educated guess would be that China wouldn't ratify a Security Council Resolution that curtails Sudan's freedom of action, but who knows?

There's war in Africa. Can anybody tell me something I don't know?

Given some institutional factors that foreshadow the UN not getting involved, I was wondering what people would think of a Libya style ad hoc coalition getting involved if necessary.

Originally Posted by Khal Drogo

Given the very real possibility of genocide occurring (perhaps by either side) I think that the world should be involved. This isn't a domestic dispute any longer, Southern Sudan has won it's independence and is now protected (and subject) to international law which should mean intervention from UN.

again? I thought the Darfur conflict ended.

And why do you think that is? Because of an out pouring of international support and a United Nations mission to the region. Do you think that will last long now that the countries at war?

Originally Posted by Raptor Buddha

Given some institutional factors that foreshadow the UN not getting involved, I was wondering what people would think of a Libya style ad hoc coalition getting involved if necessary.

It would probably be the best solution. The Libyan intervention had practically no negative repercussions on the part of the UN.

Unfortunately, this is quite a different scenario. As it's more of an asymmetrical war than revolution with a clear purpose, ground troops would likely be needed, and I doubt the United States would ever agree to that. Long-term peacekeeping operations, like this would be, are almost never successful. The conflict would probably drag on, and have major political opposition on the home front.

Given some institutional factors that foreshadow the UN not getting involved, I was wondering what people would think of a Libya style ad hoc coalition getting involved if necessary.

I think that given the success of Libya, the promotion of such a coalition would definitely be beneficial. But obviously, Chinese and Russian constraints necessitate that any sort of intervention would like be from the only countries willing: NATO.

Unfortunately, the West is pretty broke. So I can't imagine it getting off the ground. Generally, I'm in favour of military interventions in most cases. In the interests of humanitarianism, I'd argue that we have a responsibility to protect. Even if such actions must happen unilaterally and against UN rulings. I'm not likely to put stock in the demands of an organization so hijacked by dictators and authoritarian regimes when it comes to the possible dissolution of those regimes.

Some might call that imperialism. But the "imperialism" of human rights, if it can be called that, is perhaps the most desirable form of imperialism.

[/Obligatory Conservative Post]

I don't think that imperialism is an inherently evil concept, but this matter of preserving human rights is the responsibility of the world, not any one empire.

Originally Posted by Tavros

I don't think that imperialism is an inherently evil concept, but this matter of preserving human rights is the responsibility of the world, not any one empire.

Perhaps, but let's not kid ourselves.

Any action in the direction of preserving human rights through military intervention is going to come from the American hegemony.

Originally Posted by Raptor Buddha

Given some institutional factors that foreshadow the UN not getting involved, I was wondering what people would think of a Libya style ad hoc coalition getting involved if necessary.

I forgot to respond to this; it's important to note that Libya mission was (at least, initially) approved by the United Nations. The reason, I'm assuming, that the United Nations may not approve it now would likely be because of interference by the Chinese or Russians.

They've been played once; they won't stand for it again. And just as with Syria they won't approve any mission involving engaging soldiers and similar to Syria, it would require flying over hostile land or through airspace that isn't belonging to either Sudan.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Perhaps, but let's not kid ourselves.

Any action in the direction of preserving human rights through military intervention is going to come from the American hegemony.

I doubt it. Most American intervention comes from economic interests, such as the presence of fossil fuels in an area, or concrete political goals, like fierce anti-communism.

The United States has little economic interests in Sudan and its southern counterpart. While there is some oil there, I'm not sure if any American corporations are tapping it. Only China has serious financial gains in involvement in the region, due to the huge amount of petroleum it purchases from the regime.

Originally Posted by Tavros

I doubt it. Most American intervention comes from economic interests, such as the presence of fossil fuels in an area, or concrete political goals, like fierce anti-communism.

Economy of Sudan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States has little economic interests in Sudan and its southern counterpart. While there is some oil there, I'm not sure if any American corporations are tapping it. Only China has serious financial gains in involvement in the region, due to the huge amount of petroleum it purchases from the regime.

It would be to America's geopolitical benefit to install a friendly regime that is more opposed to Chinese international policy.

America intervening or not isn't based on whether or not it would benefit economically, because it would. It's based on whether they can afford to, financially in consideration of their budget and politically in consideration of the electorate and the response of allies.

Originally Posted by Great White North

It would be to America's geopolitical benefit to install a friendly regime that is more opposed to Chinese international policy.

You forget that China and the United States aren't enemies, and are in many ways more closely tied than they've ever been since the formation of the PRoC.