<p>"Argue that the international community should respect Sudan's right of self determination and not intervene in the confilct."</p>
<p>Right. So you would argue that the international community was right not to "interfere" in Rwanda? "The right of self-determination" is exactly what the Sudanese are fighting for, particularly the rebels under the oppressive Arab government. The only way to respect that would be to intervene. And I believe all bets should be called off when it is genocide.</p>
<p>Research! I have some thoughts recorded below but they are brief and dealing with specific arguments as they are ramblings. Persuasive papers do require research after all. </p>
<p>Peace negotiations are currently falling in (or have recently) fallen in.</p>
<p>Bill<em>h</em>pike: China is already turning a blind eye on human rights, in foreign and domestic policy. I think PetroChina has already bought the rights to much of the oil processed in Sudan. This argument is completely non-unique because it is already occuring in the status quo. </p>
<p>I have no idea how this issue can ever be resolved. The UN should take action but probably never will because as a member of the Security Council China can veto all UN actions/bills/etc. China has obvious interests in Sudan with the PetroChina - a state operated company - issue since it is currently guzzling oil to fuel it's growing at 9%GDP/year economy. Russian sells a lot of weapons to Sudan and will also be reluctant to act against the Arab government - the one that is funding the Janjaweed, the Arab paramilitary group that is conducting the genocide. That's why you see the Janjaweed carrying Soviet AK-47s in the newspapers. The United States is reluctant to act against China. China will never change its position because it has no reason to - even if its people start to care they can just get sent to the labor camps anyway. </p>
<p>Even if the UN gets involved there is no guarantee of peace. Look to the current situation in formerly UN occupied Somalia. Warlords control the country that is basically partitioned into warring segments. There is still no peace. </p>
<p>The African Union troops that for a short while enforced the peace negotiation in the summer are inadequate. They number in the low thousands - something like 2-3K for an area the size of Texas. Texas has more police than that. The African Union troops are probably the best bet. But they aren't getting enough funding from any countries, much less the United States, and aren't that well trained. </p>
<p>US sending aid is useless because it just prolongs the suffering. Food sent today may let a kid on the verge of starvation survive for another two days before dying. Aid might not even arrive; foreign service workers were withdrawn in the past because of the threat to their survival as the Janjaweed, sometimes in government helicopters, raid the supply trucks so that they never reach the refugee camps. Women walking outside of the boundaries of the refugee camps, usually on the border with Chad are usually raped. They abort their babies in the bathrooms. Men who step outside are killed. Refugee camps have been raided before. They are not safe. The President of Chad has consistently ragged on the Khartoum government because the conflict is furthering unrest in his own country and he accuses Khartoum of supporting the rebels that want to overthrow his own government.</p>
<p>Sanctions, I'd argue, are useless because the Arab government gets a lot of money anyway from China, and its allies in the UN, which will continue to trade with Khartoum regardless of sanctions, if they are ever enforced and passed.</p>
<p>"Should I argue that colleges, states, and municipal governments should divest in companies with ties to Sudan's government?" Perhaps. Harvard and Stanford have already done this with PetroChina. But since it is a government-based company and China is currently swimming in money, I doubt it will have a real impact but it is a nice gesture of responsible investing and about as much as wel can do right now. </p>
<p>"Should I argue that the US should play a more prominent role in resolving the conflict?" Yes, multilaterally through the UN. Will it work? Probably not. You might want to advocate the US getting involved by itself because the UN hasn't even declared the situation a genocide, and probably, see previous analysis, will never get involved. But then you run the risk of such anti-unilaterism arguments that will probably be based off of the problems of nation building, the fact that the army is spread thin (although it probably will not that take many troops to control the situation in Sudan in comparison to Iraq), and the bad precedent of Iraq. </p>
<p>Emphasize the ethical and emotional consequences and connotations of the situation to be persuasive. I think once you get into the dirty facts the indignation you'll feel will be persuasive enough.</p>
<p>After following this for three years as a result of speech and debate, I have become more fatalistic and cynical than ever. One heartening thing, however, is that this issue is finally getting some press attention - after three years. </p>
<p>Advocate some sort of micropolitical action - it might be the safest. Something like writing letters to senators and the President and Condi Rice, although all have expressed a desire for the conflict to end already but have not yet done anything concrete. And participating in such rallies.</p>
<p>I personally think the UN should get involved, regardless of any Somalia-like repurcussions because peace negotiations have already discussed the possibility of Sudan splitting into two governments. I think the UN should either fund African Union troops - or what is more feasible, the US should - or send in UN peacekeeping troops to keep the peace when negotiations are finally settled on. A ceasefire agreement was decided upon last summer, but it fell through b/c of lack of enforcement, among other things. It might be a false hope for such a situation to occur again, but that would be optimal - actually enforcing a self-negotiated ceasefire/peace agreement.</p>
<p>Oh, and I have two CRS (Congressional Research Service) Briefs for Congress on this issue - 1 on Sudan and 1 on Sudan Sanctions. PM me if you want them.</p>