Chinese Riverine and Naval Technology

The short answer to why China developed a navy is to facilitate land warfare. There are numerous rivers running from west to east in China which must be crossed if a king would unify China. Since these rivers were not permanently bridged, a commander of land forces required either sufficient boat transport or pontoon bridging material to allow his forces to cross rivers in order to continue prosecuting his attack. Innovations in Chinese naval warfare seem most pronounced in the areas of shallow draft transport, riverine warfare and bridging because it was in these fields where there was an internal Chinese arms race to produce better vessels.

Two particular battles highlight the emphasis on riverine forces. The first battle, the Battle of Red Cliff occurred in the spring of 208. Forces of the Wei dynasty chained their boats together in an offensive line, using skills perfected in bridging. Rather that lash their own boats to the Wei line, the Wu-Shu fleet drifted fire boats toward the Wei fleet, then nimbly destroyed individual vessels once they broke the formation.

Another instructive example was the battle between the Jin riverine force of small vessels arrayed against the large oceangoing vessels of the Song in the Yangtze river in 1127. Although the Song ships were powerful they required strong winds to maneuver while in the current of the Yangtze. These Song ships were no match for the Jin boats on a windless day. These engagements pointed up the fact that the necessities of transporting troops across rivers and defending these transports significantly advanced Chinese riverine warfare technology which remained at a high level throughout the dynastic period. Oceangoing Chinese naval technology was less impressive.

Naval technology (vice riverine technology) did advance at times in China, but these advances seem to be more related to the urge to thwart pirates and individual initiative. This halting advance of technology can be explained by the lack of a maritime threat to China. The Mongols to the West and North were a constant, overland threat to all of China, while southern and northern Chinese power centers were frequently at odds, requiring the riverine forces discussed above. Korean and Japan were not real threats to China until the 16th Century, and given that those two powers were in a naval arms race, they had to be wary of each other, which left China relatively unmolested. The Ming dynasty raised a huge ground army for defense, and relied on the Korean navy to interdict the Japanese supply lines, further lessening the need for Chinese naval technological advancement. Once again, the threat, or lack of it, dictated the direction of Chinese naval technology.

While it is undeniable that at times Chinese naval technology rivaled that of the European oceangoing powers, the lack of necessity for naval advancement would later severely hurt China. Once European powers began appearing off the Chinese coast in large numbers in the 19th century. China’s centuries-long lack of necessity in maintaining a naval force would result in the painful assaults on its sovereignty culminating in the Opium Wars and the Unequal Treaties.

Is China going to start something anytime soon?

I think China is hoping to keep a lid on things until 2008. In April 2008, Taiwan will elect a new president, and China is hoping that Taiwan will elect someone less confrontational. China does not want anyone rocking the boat until after the Summer Olympics in 2008.

Chen Shui Bian, the current president of Taiwan, knows that China is desperately hoping to maintain the status quo, so President Chen has been subtly and not so subtly provoking China by disbanding the "Reunification Council" and talking about Taiwan being a nation that governs itself. Chen thinks now is the time to carve out as much space for itself internationally because China is unwilling to do anything rash that might jeopardize their chance to hold the olympics.

So the wild card is Chen. Will he push China too far? Is China willing to put up with just about anything, hoping that Chen will be gone in 2008. Will something unforseen occur (spy scandal, plane wreck, natural disaster) that could completely overturn all assumptions up to now? Unknowable.

I would say that after 2008, the Chinese government will think that it has "arrived" as a superpower, and that it will feel much more unconstrained to act. I would say Winter 2008-2009 will be very dangerous for Taiwan.

That is, unless China collapses on its own accord, which is entirely possible, given their precarious financial situation, and massive unemployment. We will just have to wait and see

Chinese Dynastic Theory

The Dynastic Theory of Chinese History is the idea that Chinese History is part of a grand pattern of national unity fostered by a strong, dynastic central government, followed by periods of disunity and chaos, out of which a strong unifying agent emerges. Traditional Chinese scholarship attributed this cycle to the morality of the leaders of China through history. In other words, virtuous leaders found favor with Heaven, and so their descendents were rewarded with the opportunity to lead a unified Greater China. This classical view posits that human nature being as it is, later generations in the dynastic succession will falter when called to maintain the high standards set by the dynastic founder. Faltering angers Heaven, which will visit disaster on China which augers a period of chaos from which a new, virtuous leader will arise.

Contemporary scholarship dismisses the view that the morals of the leaders determines the fate of dynastic succession. Instead, current scholars point to other more mundane factors effecting dynasties, including large socio-economic factors, bad decision making, or plain old bad luck. Focusing on the socio-economic reasons for the rise of new dynasties, the period of chaos from which these new dynasties arise gives the victorious new leader pretense to wipe the slate clean, and to establish new laws which allow him to codify and solidify his power. Since the new leader has the power to reward his followers and supporters with land, these supporters have reason to help him maintain and extend his rule because his power is, by extension, their power. This is the “economic” part of the dynastic succession. The “socio” part of this theory involves the extent to which royal advisors who had internalized the “classical theory” of dynastic succession thought that they divined the signs of Heaven’s disfavor which in their view would inevitably lead to a period of chaos. So, to protect themselves, these powerful families would begin to position themselves as if the period of chaos had already arrived, thereby weakening the dynasty, and making the prediction self-fulfilling.

The bad decision making/bad luck explanation for dynastic succession posits that dynasties rose up for various reasons in response to contemporary events and continue on, barring some catastrophe. But the catastrophes are the key. A recurring scenario in China is a large natural event (drought, flooding, locusts) causing widespread famine. In response to the famine, families, clans or villages band together to protect their resources or to plunder the resources of clans or villages. These roving bands often became more than the central government could handle, which precipitated the breakdown of governmental authority.
Many times, this breakdown of authority was aided by the poor decisions of the dynasty in attempting to consolidate power. Dynasties would appoint leaders of distant districts based on loyalty or family relation, without regard to any particular competence. This policy would contribute to the dissolution of the dynasties, as these patronage appointments found themselves unable to cope with crises, and lost the power on the local level that had been acquired by the larger dynasty. Once the pieces began to crumble, the dynasty itself was unable to maintain control, and it too crumbled into chaos. And once the central power was lost, regional powers based on local clans and families, mentioned earlier. Out of the competition among these clans, arose the successor dynasty.

FAIR to middlin'

I am no lawyer and I don't have much experience reading Supreme Court decisions, but I do have some experience with academic debate. I took the time to read the entire opinion of Rumsfeld v FAIR that is linked on NRO because my interest in the subject. This opinion seemed like an complete demolition of poorly reasoned and factually unsupported arguments presented by an inferior debate team. The law professors (!) who drafted this suit and the Appeals Court which overturned the District Court should be embarassed to have their collective hat handed to them by the Chief Justice.

My question is: are Supreme Court opinions always so clearly written, and so decisive? If not, you may have the reason we are seeing decisions handed down without dissent. The dissenting judges are so overmatched, that they would seem ridiculuous when their arguments are held up to those of Chief Justice Roberts.

Given that, Roe v Wade is not looking like such a super duper precedent, if the quality of the scholarship out of FAIR is the best that side can muster for a case so near to their hearts, and with "Sleepy" Ginsburg, "Dopey" Souter and Great-granpappy Stevens matching wits with Chief Justice Roberts in the Supreme Court Conference Room.

Taiwan got their alphas kicked in Japan in the World Baseball Classic

They lost Thursday 2-0 to Korea in what was a really good game, with Korea playing out of their mind defense, and Taiwan's bats just going cold at the worst time. Last night, Taiwan got beat up 13-3 by Japan in seven innings because of the mercy rule. Japan is a strong team, and one of the 4 favorites in this tournament, along with the US, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

Tonight, Taiwan plays China, but both teams are only playing for pride, as only the top two teams from this pool advance to the next round in the States. Korea is guaranteed to advance since they are 2-0 after beating Taiwan and China, and Japan has the same record after beating Taiwan and China as well. Tonight's game between Japan and Korea will probably not be as good as the one between Korean and Taiwan since the field has already been set, Korea is an inferior team, and both are set to advance.

An armed Darfur is a peaceful Darfur

The step by step guide is an interesting best case course of action for Darfur, but I think that it lacks applicability to this conflict as we find it on the ground. Regarding the points in order:

1- Enlarge Peacekeeping force, carry on with humanitarian efforts, continue until law and order is restored

Enlarging the peacekeeping force, especially from the pool of peacekeepers being considered (AU and Arab League) absent strong controls and a commitment to military justice and discipline will certainly not restore law and order, instead will tend to break down law and order. A recent report about refugees in Africa by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees points to widespread and systemic exploitation of women and girls by aid workers and peacekeeping forces among three different peacekeeping operations in Africa. (UNHCR) The Independent newspaper in London asserted, based on their own investigation, that these findings do not go far enough to describe the problem: “There is a very serious problem with sexual exploitation of particularly young teenage girls, in this case in vulnerable communities, by a range of people in positions of power." (Independent) Refugees International echoes these sentiments: “Nevertheless, there does appear to be a relationship between the number of international peacekeepers and aid workers and sexual trafficking and prostitution. Furthermore, no matter the actual extent of the problem, the perception of the problem has serious implications for the overall credibility of the UN.” (Refugees International) In this region, at this time, peacekeepers do not seem to be a reasonable solution.

2- Investigate. Send members of all parties who are guilty of violating international law to the ICC. If the government refuses, take them by force. This shows that the international community is not messing around anymore.

Taking the government of a sovereign country is an act of war and is especially problematic if they are being “taken” only to try them in court. The ICC operates on the premise that suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but declaring war would be a de facto declaration that the leaders of the government, against whom war is declared, are guilty. Declaring war to determine whether someone is guilty is illogical on its face, and would never be approved by the UN or any member state.

3- Begin disarmament process, and at the same time, start to bring back some of the refugees. This would also be a good time to hold negotiations.

There is no evidence that disarming the parties solves the problem or refugees, village burning or leads to negotiation. In fact, assuming disarmament does these things is counter-intuitive. Recent history shows that peace comes not when the parties are disarmed, but when the parties are armed equally. The Soviet Union was fought to a stalemate in Afghanistan when the US begin sending arms to the mujahadeen. The Kurds in Northern Iraq were free of fear from Saddam when the no-fly zone and infusion of arms prevented the Baathist forces from entering the region to kill as they had previously. India and Pakistan’s first instinct is to negotiate, now that both openly possess nuclear weapons. China and Taiwan have enjoyed 60+ years of peace, North and South Korea, 50+ years and the Pacific has been free of Japanese aggression because all are armed in rough balance. When we see an imbalance, or when one side has no arms to defend itself, that is when we see atrocities as we have seen in the German ghettos of the 30’s, and recently in Rwanda, towards the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq and anyplace there are defenseless people arrayed against brutal men with guns such as in Darfur.

A much surer path to negotiations than more peacekeepers or disarmament would be to arm those people without a means to defend themselves so they can fight to a stalemate. This would lead to the opportunity for #4 - #6.

4- Hold numerous meetings throughout the region, inviting all members of all parties. Why?
a- “The development of safe forums for communication and interaction that allow people to get to know each other as human beings.
b- Reconciliation- All sides can express their pain and anguish.
c- Educational purposes. This enables the international community to hold training seminars on such important issues as combating desertification and harvesting. But as important as this is, “it is often secondary to the personal rapport that can be built and the understanding of different perspectives that can develop as a result of bringing people together in an educational forum.” (pg. 227).
5- Over time, pull back forces step by step. Continue negotiations. Leave the various NGOs, Humanitarian aid, and trainers to keep working.
6- Eventually pull back all UN peacekeepers leaving only AU. Keep watchful eye on government and get daily reports from NGOs.

I am definitely in favor of peace instead of war, but I think the prescription of peacekeepers, international trials and negotiations is only workable to safeguard a peace AFTER the people who are oppressed have a means to enter into negotiation with roughly equal levels of power. Once a stalemate has been reached on the groud, negotiations can begin and Mayer’s principles of negotiation can find some purchase.

Works cited:

The Independent. “The Dark Side of Peacekeeping.” 10 July 2003

Refugees International. “Conflict, Sexual Trafficking, and Peacekeeping.”
(http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/4146?PHPSESSID=8cd9d5b0df1ae0bbae8d3ddf647ec715). 10/08/2004

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Note for
Implementing and Operational Partners by UNHCR and Save the Children-UK
on Sexual Violence & Exploitation: The Experience of Refugee Children in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone based on Initial Findings and Recommendations from Assessment Mission 22 October - 30 November 2001. United Nations: (New York) February 2002

An armed Darfu is a peaceful Darfur

The step by step guide is an interesting best case course of action for Darfur, but I think that it lacks applicability to this conflict as we find it on the ground. Regarding the points in order:

1- Enlarge Peacekeeping force, carry on with humanitarian efforts, continue until law and order is restored

Enlarging the peacekeeping force, especially from the pool of peacekeepers being considered (AU and Arab League) absent strong controls and a commitment to military justice and discipline will certainly not restore law and order, instead will tend to break down law and order. A recent report about refugees in Africa by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees points to widespread and systemic exploitation of women and girls by aid workers and peacekeeping forces among three different peacekeeping operations in Africa. (UNHCR) The Independent newspaper in London asserted, based on their own investigation, that these findings do not go far enough to describe the problem: “There is a very serious problem with sexual exploitation of particularly young teenage girls, in this case in vulnerable communities, by a range of people in positions of power." (Independent) Refugees International echoes these sentiments: “Nevertheless, there does appear to be a relationship between the number of international peacekeepers and aid workers and sexual trafficking and prostitution. Furthermore, no matter the actual extent of the problem, the perception of the problem has serious implications for the overall credibility of the UN.” (Refugees International) In this region, at this time, peacekeepers do not seem to be a reasonable solution.

2- Investigate. Send members of all parties who are guilty of violating international law to the ICC. If the government refuses, take them by force. This shows that the international community is not messing around anymore.

Taking the government of a sovereign country is an act of war and is especially problematic if they are being “taken” only to try them in court. The ICC operates on the premise that suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but declaring war would be a de facto declaration that the leaders of the government, against whom war is declared, are guilty. Declaring war to determine whether someone is guilty is illogical on its face, and would never be approved by the UN or any member state.

3- Begin disarmament process, and at the same time, start to bring back some of the refugees. This would also be a good time to hold negotiations.

There is no evidence that disarming the parties solves the problem or refugees, village burning or leads to negotiation. In fact, assuming disarmament does these things is counter-intuitive. Recent history shows that peace comes not when the parties are disarmed, but when the parties are armed equally. The Soviet Union was fought to a stalemate in Afghanistan when the US begin sending arms to the mujahadeen. The Kurds in Northern Iraq were free of fear from Saddam when the no-fly zone and infusion of arms prevented the Baathist forces from entering the region to kill as they had previously. India and Pakistan’s first instinct is to negotiate, now that both openly possess nuclear weapons. China and Taiwan have enjoyed 60+ years of peace, North and South Korea, 50+ years and the Pacific has been free of Japanese aggression because all are armed in rough balance. When we see an imbalance, or when one side has no arms to defend itself, that is when we see atrocities as we have seen in the German ghettos of the 30’s, and recently in Rwanda, towards the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq and anyplace there are defenseless people arrayed against brutal men with guns such as in Darfur.

A much surer path to negotiations than more peacekeepers or disarmament would be to arm those people without a means to defend themselves so they can fight to a stalemate. This would lead to the opportunity for #4 - #6.

4- Hold numerous meetings throughout the region, inviting all members of all parties. Why?
a- “The development of safe forums for communication and interaction that allow people to get to know each other as human beings.
b- Reconciliation- All sides can express their pain and anguish.
c- Educational purposes. This enables the international community to hold training seminars on such important issues as combating desertification and harvesting. But as important as this is, “it is often secondary to the personal rapport that can be built and the understanding of different perspectives that can develop as a result of bringing people together in an educational forum.” (pg. 227).
5- Over time, pull back forces step by step. Continue negotiations. Leave the various NGOs, Humanitarian aid, and trainers to keep working.
6- Eventually pull back all UN peacekeepers leaving only AU. Keep watchful eye on government and get daily reports from NGOs.

I am definitely in favor of peace instead of war, but I think the prescription of peacekeepers, international trials and negotiations is only workable to safeguard a peace AFTER the people who are oppressed have a means to enter into negotiation with roughly equal levels of power. Once a stalemate has been reached on the groud, negotiations can begin and Mayer’s principles of negotiation can find some purchase.

Works cited:

The Independent. “The Dark Side of Peacekeeping.” 10 July 2003

Refugees International. “Conflict, Sexual Trafficking, and Peacekeeping.”
(http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/4146?PHPSESSID=8cd9d5b0df1ae0bbae8d3ddf647ec715). 10/08/2004

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Note for
Implementing and Operational Partners by UNHCR and Save the Children-UK
on Sexual Violence & Exploitation: The Experience of Refugee Children in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone based on Initial Findings and Recommendations from Assessment Mission 22 October - 30 November 2001. United Nations: (New York) February 2002

Darfur

Darfur is an area about which much is said, mostly by people who seem to have no real knowledge about what is going on. Darfur has entered our lexicon as a synonym for “genocide” but most who talk about Darfur would be hard-pressed to describe who is being exterminated by whom. Both presidential candidates in the last US presidential election “agreed that was was happening Darfur was genocide.” (Wikipedia) If Darfur is “genocide,” this would certainly fit into the “clash of civilizations” thesis, but this would imply that the conflict is something more than an “impasse” that is amenable to negotiation techniques. On the other hand, if Darfur is genuinely a conflict that has reached impasse, this would make the killings and village destructions that have occurred extreme manifestations of negotiating tactics. The sides are saying “we are serious about our position, and are willing to kill to show it.” It is necessary to define the conflict in order to analyze whether Mayer’s impasse resolution tactics would be successful.

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines “genocide” as: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Jacobson) The amount of killing is irrelevant but rather, the motivation of the killers: “The specificity of genocide does not arise from the extent of their killings nor their savagery nor resulting infamy, but solely from their intention: the destruction of a group.” (Destexhe pg4)

In Darfur, it is not clear that any of the actions or the motivations of the actors meet Destexhe’s definition of genocide. The UN itself looked at the very question of whether the situation in Darfur is genocide and concluded that what is going on there is not genocide. In the words of the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the Secretary-General of the UN: “Generally speaking the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. Rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare.” (Report of the International Commission, pg2) Leave aside for a moment the thorny question of the UN’s objectivity, after all, if the UN declares the situation to be genocide, they will be on the hook to do something about it. Or, in the words of Mark Steyn:

“After months of expressing deep, grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what’s going on in Darfur. Eventually, they reported back that it’s not genocide.

That’s great news, isn’t it? Because if it had been genocide, that would have been very, very serious. As yet another Kofi Annan-appointed UN committee boldly declared a year ago: “Genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated.” So thank goodness what’s going on in Sudan isn’t genocide. Instead, it’s just 100,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group—which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone’s dead, and none of the multilateral compassion types have to worry their pretty heads about it.” (Steyn)

Given the accuracy of the UN’s assessment, that the situation in Darfur is a “counter-insurgency” and that the sides are at an impasse, it is necessary to get to the issues in contention. A UN study published in 2002 identified clashes over transhumance (the transfer of livestock from one grazing ground to another, as from lowlands to highlands, with the changing of seasons) as the root of the conflict. Further, the report identified 9 “causes of route conflicts” which included:

1. DROUGHT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION.
2. DEGRADATION OF WATER RESOURCES.
3. THE TIMING OF TALIG (GRAZING OF FARM RESIDUES).
4. POPULATION GROWTH.
5. POOR LOCAL CAPACITIES. Official understanding of the pastoral production system and its complexities and requirements is limited
6. COMMERCIALIATION (sic) OF AGRICULTURE.
7. GREIVENCY (sic): Lack of representation of pastoralists in crop damage estimation committees and the exaggeration of the value of that damage by the farmers is usually a cause of serious tension and confrontations between the farmers and the pastoralists.
8. LACK OF CONSULTATION: Farmers in Abu Zeraiga in El Fashir province claim that they were not consulted when the routes were marked. As a result, some villages and agricultural lands were included in the route area.
9. ESTABLISHMENT OF PASTORAL ENCLOSURES. (United Nations Development Programme)

Some of these points of contention are clearly outside the limits of what can be effected by negotiation. Drought and environmental degradation can certainly introduce stress into relations between groups of people but cannot be changed by negotiation. However, the other seven causes certainly seem amenable to negotiation. Several attempts at negotiation over a 13 year period were pursued, but ultimately failed for four reasons identified in the report:

1. Decisions & recommendations were not followed up and thus remained unattended in the offices of the senior officials and, therefore, rarely reached the grass roots levels who are the main stakeholders. This was partly due to the weaknesses of the state media and the poor and distorted representation of the communities.

2. The third party to conflict (those working behind the scene and fueling conflict) has its own interests (armed robbery, weapons trading..etc.). Such party is rarel considered.

3. Apparent weaknesses of the native administration system in the area in terms of effective representation, acceptance, legitimacy, legal recognition, authority and economic and financial capacities.

4. Poor and weak supervision and implementation mechanisms at the state level. (United Nations Development Programme)

Perhaps the most crucial one of these reasons for failure was the interest of third parties. The local contestants in the Darfur are largely indistinguishable from one another. In the words of an academic from Darfur:

The labels “African” and “Arab” weren’t always as pronounced as they are today. The problem started as a competition over resources—land and water. But then people started revising their world views according to their ethnic identities. Visually, Africans and Arabs in Darfur look the same. It’s only when somebody tells you, “I’m Arab,” or from another tribe, that you know how a person identifies himself. During this conflict, identity has become a label that people use to pursue their claims for land or water. (Renwick)

Given that the contesting parties are largely indistinguishable outside their own self identification, it is hard to conclude that the conflict in the Darfur is about anything other than economic competition. However, the factions squabbling over transhumance and water appealed to outside groups in what Mayer has called association power. These larger groups, Pan Arabist organizations, al Qeida, the Sudanese government, the Chadian governments and others have all weighed in on one side or the other. During the Cold War, the term for this types of conflicts was war by proxy. Douglas Johnson has identified a similar phenomenon at work in Darfur:

Often times, appeals to Islam and Pan Arabism have been used by Khartoum Government to overcome the discontent of marginality elsewhere in the North. These appeals are not only to home grown support but increasingly about access to external powerful allies. The power of Pan Arabist ideology, however fictitious its actual base, can connect local groups to a wider international community and offers them opportunity to mobilize support for internal conflicts. We have noted: the alliance of Arab tribes in Darfur appealing to Libya outside Sudan and the UMMA and NIF parties inside Sudan; Sadiq rallying Arab North to retake Kurmuk from SPLA forces, the successive governments were appealing to wealthy Muslim States for military hardware in the face of Anti-Arab insurgency in the South. (Johnson, pg 141)

The upshot of this appeal to outside power is that the local groups lose their autonomy to make deals of mutual, local benefit because these local groups are beholden to murky, larger forces with more expansive agendas. So, attempting to negotiate at a local level will prove ineffective so long as the larger powers continue to use the Darfur as a battle by proxy. Connell believes that Darfur can only be solved as part of a larger, regional peace: “The only two possible solutions under these circumstances are to fold Darfur and other regional conflicts (including that in the northeast) into the north-south peace talks taking place in Naivasha, Kenya, and deal with the nation as a whole, or to give up on the notion of a unified Sudanese state.” (Connell)

Given that the UN does not consider refugees to be victims of genocide, and with the realities of the violent impasse in the Sudan, the facts on the ground may present negotiators with only one realistic choice. Negotiate new, international boundaries along a defensible frontier for the aggrieved Darfurians, and appeal to the international community to respect and defend those borders. Absent this type of regional negotiated break in the impasse, there is a much larger chance Darfur will turn into the genocide all fear.

BBC. “Analysis: Defining genocide”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3853157.stm) 1 Feb 2005.
Connell, Dan. “Sudan: The Politics of Slaughter.” Grassroots
Online. (http://www.grassrootsonline.org/weblog/sudanconnell.html) 14 October 2004.

Destexhe, Alan. Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century.
Pluto Press: (London) 1995.
International Commission of Inquiry. Report of the International
Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the Secretary-General:
Pursuant to Security Council resolution 1564 (2004) of 18 September 2004. United Nations: (New York) 1 Feb 05

Jacobson, Mary. “Balkan Glossary of Terms.” FACSNET:
(http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/kosovo/glossary.php3) 18 Jan 2000.

Johnson, Douglas H. The Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars.
Indiana University Press: (Bloomington, Indiana) 2003.

Renwick, Lucille. “Darfur: Roots of Conflict.” Ford Foundation
Report. Spring-Summer 2005.

Steyn, Mark. “America and the United Nations” Imprimis Magazine.
February, 2006.

United Nations Development Programme. Research on Roots of Conflict and Traditional: Conflict Transformation Mechanisms. TRANSHUMANCE ROUTES IN NORTH DARFUR. (http://www.sd.undp.org/Publications/pub2/Transhumance%20routes%20report2.htm) September 2002.