Ensuring Action in Worst Case Scenario

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful posts! Let's continue trying to formulate this objective, because it will be guiding everything we'll be doing for the rest of the year.

So what happens if the Khartoum government absolutely refuses to sign an "All-Sudan" peace deal, and no reasonable incentive can persuade them not to do this? This is not at all an impossible scenario. Luis Moreno-Ocampo has currently been conducting a very intense investigation into war crimes commited in the region, and his investigation seems to keep uncovering more potential perpetrators eligible for prosecution. Mounting criminal evidence against members of the Khartoum government would most likely cause the government to outright refuse any offer to sign a peace deal that necessarily includes a provision that criminal investigations will be completed in full and perpetrators will be prosecuted by the Hague. It is possible that all parties will be receiving a hand full of get-out-of-jail-free cards in any case (or will have to settle for national expulsion) for the sake of getting a peace deal signed, but we know that the UN has already decided that a handful of higher up officials will be prosecuted if successfully arrested. But ultimately the corruption in Sudan's power structure may prove to be too great to let go, and if this is the case, it puts a peace agreement with Sudan's current ruling regime in danger.

John Prendergast has suggested that the US, China, France, and all other NATO countries get ready to take military action in Sudan in case a peace agreement looks too far out of reach. Assuming this is the right solution to the problem (which I happen to agree with), our goal then needs to be to have the presidential candidates make the voters perceive that they are serious about doing something in Darfur, without mentioning the possibility of a NATO campaign (because with a war-weary America, that just sounds scary) and without having them walk themselves in the trap of promising something less that will actually not work but sure sounds like a serious measure of diplomacy (such as the promise of a no-fly zone or more "heavy" sanctions). Candidates can instead keep to the message that vigorous diplomacy needs to be pursued in Sudan, and when it comes to keeping them from walking into a trap of bad promises, we can make sure that STAND's "Ask the Candidates" campaign doesn't ask moderators to question candidates on what will happen if a peace agreement fails. Also, the more often we are able to get the candidates to repeat their promise of pursuing a diplomatic solution in Sudan, the more they'll get the right political message across and the more political capital they'll earn for themselves to spend on Darfur.

To be sure, a military intervention would not be the last action we'd take in Sudan, because our goal would still be to pursue a peace agreement after that, but in this case we would hopefully have the opportunity to prosecute the perpetrators.