In response to StaceyW,

Thanks for the comments.

For some reason my name gets changed from Brooks to Brown in the post – for the record, it is Brooks.  That is actually the very first time I have been confused with Gordon Brown, but I will add it to my resume under ‘highlights.’

In terms of accountability and transparency for private contractors – if the UN/US/AU/EU is writing the contract, the UN/US/AU/EU can writein whatever level of transparency and accountability is desired.  Companies that don’t like that won’t bid on this contract.  But there is no shortage of ethical and professional firms that are interested in doing humanitarian security that have no problem with effective transparency and accountability.  The Darfur situation is significantly easier and far less risky that most of the security work in Iraq, and there would be no problem finding experienced personnel interested in helping to end the human carnage in Darfur.

It has always seemed odd to me that few people have problems when for-profit private security is utilized to protect THINGS like mines, oil facilities, warehouses, UN offices and the such, but God help us if the same security is used to protect PEOPLE. 

Yes, IPOA is funded by member companies – see our web site for more information about this unique organization at http://www.IPOAonline.org.  The goal from the beginning has been to support international efforts in peace and stability operations with effective and ethical private sector services including logistics, demining, security, aviation, medical services, training and much more. 

Also, readers might want to check out our Journal of International Peace Operations at http://www.PeaceOps.com which carries articles related to the industry and to this topic in particular.

And IPOA has always had an open door policy with journalists.

Finally, regarding the comment, “the bloodshed in Darfur will only stop when the U.S., the Europeans, and the UN put the muscle behind the effort to negotiate a diplomatic solution there.”

- Greater Western support would be wonderful, and IPOA fully supports such efforts.  Don’t hold your breath though. 

Millions died in Eastern Congo (and continue to die) with no significant or sustained Western military effort to support that UN operation.  Finding the political will to deploy Western troops to conflicts that have little threat or impact on the West is increasingly difficult, no matter how dire the humanitarian cost.  Average UN deployment times to conflicts where the key issue is humanitarian rather than strategic are stretching out longer than a year, and the overwhelming bulk of the troops who do end up deploying come from the less developed countries of the world, lacking the equipment, training and support that Western militaries enjoy. 

In the mean time ethical private firms could be on the ground in Darfur doing humanitarian security in a matter of days. 

Your call.

-Doug Brooks

I wonder if Doug Brooks, who apparently works for the trade association of military private contractors, actually read the article he is criticizing.
  The point Truthdig was making is that the U.S. government and others have shirked from meaningful actions to halt the Darfur genocide.  If the Bush Administration, Tony Blair-Gordon Brown, and others had truly engaged in an all-out effort there, thousands of lives could have been saved.
  Instead, Bush has sent in the hired guns…the same private contractors that are all over Iraq.  As Sarah Stillman points out, these contractors in the Darfur area aren’t really publicly accountable, lack transparency, and are there to make a profit.  Certainly there may be some good people on the ground and they may do some good work….BUT the point is that the U.S. and the Europeans need to do more about Darfur than just writea check.
  Does this Doug Brown really think that “Once folks like Ms. Stillman recognize that humanitarian security has value, we can stop slaughters like the one in the Darfur-Chad region.”  What Brownie seems to be saying here is that “humanitarian security” can only be provided by private, for-profit military contractors who presumably pay their dues to his trade association of mercenaries.
  No…the bloodshed in Darfur will only stop when the U.S., the Europeans, and the UN put the muscle behind the effort to negotiate a diplomatic solution there.

sorry,
didnt mean to double post,
i thought the first time my post didnt go thru….

so uncle sham wants to set up a “no fly zone” in sudan, kinda like the one he imposed on iraq before the invasion—a private firing range for uncle sham and friends to do some firing practice??

i heard uncle sham wants to set up a “no fly zone” in sudan, kinda like the one he imposed on iraq before the invasion, a private firing range for sham and buddies to do some target practice..?

“Indeed, the Darfur crisis is following a pattern which is so well-worn now that it has almost become routine. Saturation reporting from a crisis region; emergency calls for help broadcast on the electronic media (such as the one recently on the BBC Radio 4 flagship ‘ Today’ programme); televised pictures of refugees; lurid stories of “mass rapes”, which are surely designed to titillate as much to provoke outrage; reproachful evocations of the Rwandan genocide; demands that something must be done (“How can we stand idly by?”, etc.); editorials in the Daily Telegraph calling for a return to the days of Rudyard Kipling’s benevolent imperialism[6] ; and, finally, the announcement that plans are indeed being drawn up for an intervention.”
...................
“Intervention will allow Western forces to control an oil rich region, and perhaps to expel the present holders of concessions. The fact that the biggest of these is China, and that America’s other foreign adventures also seem to have as their goal the control of energy supplies to that strategic rival, only adds further piquancy to what is, otherwise, an all too banal case of modern imperialistic meddling”

Joseph Conrad

I concur - per my post below. The simple question WHENEVER the buzz hits the MSM - WHY? WHY DARFUR? Why everytime, Palestine comes up, the likes of Dershowitz are so quick to say - pay no attention - look at the “genocide” in Darfur.

Your right though the issues in Darfur are complex and has nothing to do with genocide. This is about scarcity of sustenance. The “good guys” are every bit as guilty of atrocities as the “bad guys”. In other words, no good/bad guys.

But this issue hits upon the very core of how humanitarian interventionism has been the faux reason for much of the historical justifications for empires. In this case, it is not entirely clear what kind of mischief is going on with the CIA, but they know that this is NO genocide. That’s a meaningful legal word that’s getting tossed around by totally ignorant souls.

Last evening the whole crew of Dems on a PBS/Travis Smiley PBS forum were ready to “invade” Darfur to just DO SOMETHING to stop this faux Genocide. No one, not a one put their hands up and said - Why Darfur? What Genocide? The audience mostly African Americans have had the whole thing framed as White people don’t care about non-white Africans. The same people who applaud getting out of Iraq (a real genocide created and sustained by US military actions), give the same hoot and holler for creating “no fly zones” - an act of aggression, that would create the beginning of a new quagmire.

Read people, study, learn, use your brains, question. Stop buying the simple rhetoric. Ask why would THEY want us to intervene in Darfur when there are 10 times worse going on else where most of it US created?

It seems to me that Darfur has become a large media spin. So large, in fact, that facts allude us and the issue is to intervene or somehow stop the killing. While killing is always something that needs to be stopped, the world is filled with killing, starting with our very own in Iraq and Afganistan - mostly innocent civilians.

But if we want to really talk genocide how about the Congo where the number of mass killings are truly enormous and have been growing for some time. But nerry a peep. And then there’s Palestine. But the connection between Palestinian genocide seems to allude those who are so fervant about Darfur - where there is an acknowledged civil war. A war where there are no simple “good” VS “evil” and where the UN and the EU have concluded there is no genocide, as defined by international law, happening in Darfur. Yet, daily Darfur is refered to in the media as in a state of genocide. Hillary Clinton is ready to crate a no fly zone and forefully intervene. And where are the peace makers in response? Silence.

It’s fair to say intervention is needed, but that it should be through fully supporting the African Union, providing them with the essential resources coupled with continued political resolutions. This is clearly, for anyone who studies this problem, not Rwanda, nor Iraq, nor Palestine nor the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

So I ask: why has Darfur become the pivotal point on humanitarian intervention?

Actually I think a boycott of the Olympics and China in general is the way to go. I hope pressure is brought to bear on athletes and countries to show some moral backbone and let China bask in the shadow of its own shame.

I don’t trust the soft approach, it smacks of the old mantra that maintains trading with nations like China will make their societies more democratic. As far as I’m concerned the opposite has been happening. Instead of our leaders influencing regimes like China’s, they’re coming away with a diminshed sense of the importance of human rights if not an appreciation for the benefits of being more authoritarian.

So much for China’s principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of others. I guess China must have learned something from our leaders after all.

Thank you for this very timely and informative analysis. In your category of “citizen activists” on Darfur, I’d like to alertreaders to the new “24 Hours for Darfur” grassroots video advocacy project (http://www.24hoursfordarfur.org) started by a group of students at Yale University. Their goal is to collect very brief (e.g., 30-second) clips via webcam or video camera that will be combined to create a full 24 hours of footage for presentation at the UN and elsewhere. The website also includes valuable background information and links about the conflict. I encourage everyone to take a look—and contribute a video!