I agree that the international cooperation it end the genocide in Darfur is abhorrent, to say the least. However, passing the task onto private security forces, merely because we can “pay to deploy them,” instead of reaching international agreement through diplomatic means, somehow seems to undermine the intentions of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It sounds like there is a parallel that if there is a problem, throw money at it, and get it done. Now I realize what is at stake are human lives as the international community uses Darfur as political leverage, especially in America.

So is this a case of the ends justifies the means? By solving this problem, by ending the genocide, people can say that something was accomplished, but what precedent would that set? What would tyrannical leaders, despots, and nations currently experiencing gross human right violations think of this solution? Is genocide is a case, that it should be solved by any means, and then sorted out after?

“Numerous private companies stand ready to provide the security that humanitarian groups have been demanding for years…” for the right price I guess, not because of their humanitarian principles. But then again, neither are the people who are committing the genocide.