PDA

View Full Version : Endings For a (Potential) Darfur Diplomatic Simulation


SilentScope001
06-07-2007, 08:15 PM
Currently the Iraq War Simulation is already done with the framework and in the process of programming. Hopefully, it will be done ASAP.

While waiting for that to be done, I came up with an idea for a Darfuri political simulation. The idea would be that you are appointed as the U.N. special representative to Sudan, with the main goal of, well, stopping the violence in Sudan. You get to talk to the major parties, including the Sudanese government, the rebels, and Chad, as well as other people who are interested in what is happening (China, USA, etc), and you can always report your findings to the United Nations Security Council in an attempt to influence them to do certain actions to stop the Crisis in Sudan.

Unlike the Iraq War Simulation, which would end after a certain time period, this Darfur Diplomatic Simulation would actually last forever until you reach an ending condition. It will track how many months and years have passed and how long the simulation is running when you are talking and making deals, with a small counter detailing how many people are currently dying in Darfur. So, basically, the game will not end after time expired, but rather, after a very important event happens.

What I am wondering is that I have only three possible ending conditions: You could succesfully negogiate a settlement that could lead to the end of the Conflict, you could attempt to ram in an UN Security Council resolution that would send in UN Peacekeepers and basically stop Sudan from entering Darfur, or you could tender your resignation into the UN Secruity Council, basically giving up.

I have a feeling that is not enough. So, here we go. If you know anything about the Darfur Conflict, please tell me of possible endings that the Special Envoy could encounter that would end the game, and how would the Special Enovy actually cause these "endings" to occur.

This is NOT a topic about how the Darfur Conflict is going. There are several topics about that already, and I'm not worried on who's right or who's wrong. I just want to find ways to create a better game by adding in possible endings other than the ones I already have. Also, please make sure the endings are serious, due to the fact that this diplomatic game is pretty serious. If I use your ending, I promise to credit you.

GarfieldJL
06-08-2007, 08:31 AM
The odds of the UN actually doing anything to end the situation in Darfur is slim to none. The UN has demonstrated with Iraq a huge level of corruption, specifically the Oil for Food scandal which only came to light when the United States actually went into Iraq.

Considering at least two permanent members get oil from Sudan, I sincerely doubt anything meaningful will be brought against Sudan by the UN. Odds are another country would have to intervene without the United Nations.

SilentScope001
06-08-2007, 08:54 AM
When I mean UN Security Council, I did not really mean all of the UN. The only two people that matters are China and USA, the two veto-holding members of the UN and the two nations that actually care what is going on down there. If you can get China and the USA to agree to a peacekeeping force and ram it into Sudan, you can end the game. Sudan won't like it though.

GarfieldJL
06-08-2007, 09:18 AM
Where are you getting that information from, cause quite frankly it's not entirely accurate.

While China is an issue concerning the sending of a peace-keeping force, the United States is not. The United States last I checked doesn't even do business with Sudan. The UK, France, Russia, and China do business with Sudan. I'm not keen on leaving Iraq in a mess just to go try to deal with another mess.

mimartin
06-08-2007, 12:43 PM
While I agree that something should and must be done in Darfur, I have to agree with GarfieldJL on this one. The US military is already stretched too thin in Afghanistan and Iraq and unfortunately would not be able to send peace-keeping force to where they are really needed.

While an all voluntary military has it advantages large number is not one of them. The US already made this mistake once by going into Iraq, before Afghanistan was really secured and before Osama bin Laden was really dealt with.

Where I disagree with GarfieldJL is this is our problem. It is just a problem that we are unable to take on at this time. The US should and must do everything within its diplomatic power to get other country in there as peacekeepers. We want to be world leaders then we should act like it. Just because we do not do business with a country does not mean we should not take responsibility for helping stop the human crisis happening there. If we donít it only proves the extremist point that we will only help those places where we can take advantage of their natural resources for our own gain. That is not the America I know and love, but is the American that I suspect Iím living in.

GarfieldJL
06-08-2007, 07:40 PM
mimartin, I'm saying as long as Russia and China block resolutions against Sudan the UN can't do anything. All it takes is 1 permanent security council member to block a resolution.

SilentScope001
06-08-2007, 09:43 PM
1) USA does care a bit what goes down there, maybe. There is this Darfur Lobby that does pressure them a bit. George W. Bush complains of the slowness of the problem, and the USA ambassadors make quite a ruckus about Darfur's problems.

2) To simulate the veto-holding members of the security council, both China and USA are the only ones that matter (you get to talk and interact with them, after all). If China hates the Peacekeeper Idea, they'll veto the propsal. You have to either get China to agree or to abstain to the resolution. How you do so depends on your diplomatic skills.

3) Um...er...just to be clear, having it be an option that you can send peackeepers over in Sudan by getting the approval of China does not mean I actually endorse said idea. In this game, I want to let players decide what to do, and if they want to drop peacekeepers over in Sudan, they can. They just need approval from the UN, or even possibly, get the USA to intervene itself (again, just because you could persaude the USA to send in troops and invade Darfur does not mean it's a Good Idea). But it can easily backfire. Other methods for ending the crisises are needed, hence the reason why I asked for Endings for this Diplomatic Simulation, other than getting a Peace Treaty with Sudan, sending in Peacekeepers, and Throwing In the Towel.

Basically, to explain, the game is supposed to be a simulation, not aiding or supporting one side or another.

4) As a general note: This isn't about politics. This is about events that could be used as endings for this potential game. But, maybe, er, it wasn't such a good idea to ask? /shrugs.

GarfieldJL
06-09-2007, 12:04 AM
SilentScope we don't have the troops to do it and be able to respond if Iran gets close to having a nuclear weapon which the fanatics in charge of Iran don't care at all about the lives of their civilian populace, they just think if they annihilate Israel they'll go to heaven with and have a bunch of beautiful Virgins to serve them. Also it's hypocritical to say we should pull out of Iraq yet we should invade Darfur.


A peace keeping force would have to consist of some European Countries and/or African ones.

SilentScope001
06-09-2007, 12:46 AM
SilentScope we don't have the troops to do it and be able to respond if Iran gets close to having a nuclear weapon which the fanatics in charge of Iran don't care at all about the lives of their civilian populace, they just think if they annihilate Israel they'll go to heaven with and have a bunch of beautiful Virgins to serve them. Also it's hypocritical to say we should pull out of Iraq yet we should invade Darfur.

...Uh, what? Let me explain.

It's supposed to be a simulation, not a political statement. In order to get a UN-backed Peacekeeping Force established (note, UN-backed, so meaning that there will be more than Americans, and no overextension) the Player must talk to China, the veto-holding member of the UN, and persuade them to either abstain [abstaining in the UN means a very weak "No", and the lack of using veto power] or agree to the propsal to send in peacekeeping forces. So, it's basically what you say, without the digression on Iran.

How you'll persaude China? That would be very interesting to watch, and it's up to the Player to find out. But there are other ways than ramming in a peacekeeping deal though that could end the Darfur conflict...

Do note however that there could be consquences to sending in peacekeeping forces. It can backfire. And China would be quite upset indeed if you are sending in peacekeeping forces without the consent of Sudan.

...And a bit of a clarification, you, the Player, is not affilated to the US. You are a Diplomat working for the UN to end the conflict in Darfur. One of the people you can talk to, and work closely with, is the US though...

True_Avery
06-09-2007, 06:08 AM
The game has been played repeatedly and lost in all ways. I was wondering when this topic would be brought up, as I have done a ton of stuff for this as different points.

Want to win the game? Take al-Bashir and his government out of power by any means necessary. There, problem fixed.

Here is some background for some who don't know about the Darfur Genocide (Yes, I am calling it a Genocide even though the UN says it is not):

When Iraq conflict hit the 3 year mark, 3,000 people were estimated to have died. A lot more have died to this day and I think about a year ago more people died in Iraq than the Twin Towers we aparently went there to avenge.

Darfur, when it hit its 3 year mark over 500,000 civilians had died in Darfur and 2,500,000 have lost their home.. Oddly enough, the two conflicts started around the same time.

al-Bashir, a man who userped rule over Sudan through military might, has been controling the destruction of mainly Muslims in the area under his Arab government and personal military force. This force? A group that call themselves the Janjaweed, former Arab farmers given weapons, money, and orders to destroy all muslims.

This genocide is worse than Iraq and is currently the worst thing happening in the world today. Why? The Janjaweed go from town to town, village to village and raid everything. They kill nearly anybody they see and keep women as prizes. It is common practice for them to raid a village, enter houses, rape women and girls in front of their families or in public eye, and then take them as prisoner and kill the rest of the family. The girls are then taken to sex slave camps of sometimes over 10,000 women and kept there until death or release. They brand each woman and girl that is raped, than throw them back into public so the women are treated as unclean and disgusting for being violated in such a way.

People are shot, bombed, raped, dragged by horse back, butchered, and destroyed in all meaning of the word. Camps upon camps of refugees are scattered around Darfur and Sudan of people who are starving to death and dieing of disease with only make shift tents to live in.

Peace through weak moves has been attempted frequently. Peace treaty upon peace treaty has been attempted and they all have been violated. Why doesn't anybody send a force in to stop this? China and veto. The current government of Sudan is giving China oil. A lot of oil. China's largest supplier of oil. The UN wants to stop this and have made a peacekeeping force of over 20,000 to stop this, but cannot put it into action because China is using its veto to stop continuation. I am not sure about current news, but I think a peacekeeping force is in Sudan right now but no attempt at getting al-Bashir out of power has been made thus far.

And as for the US government caring, pfft. We act like we care to make us look good. The most we have done there is some failed peace treaties. It barely, if ever, makes it onto the news even though it is hundreds of times worse than Iraq or how stupid Paris Hilton is being. If we truly went to Iraq to get Saddam out of power, then we left a far worse person in power and have 500,000 people dead in a desert. But if we left Saddam alone, he might have done just as much so it is uncertain which would have been better.

Peace treaties are not followed by al-Bashir, the monarch. Applied Force is veto'ed by China. Rebel forces are too weak to fight back.

So how do we fix the conflict? We take China out of this equation and it can be fixed. Harder said than done. How do you convince a country to get rid of its largest supplier of oil I think is the better question. I know that USA would never ever do that. China has a lot more people than the US, so good luck convincing them to let go.

As far as I can see, this conflict will keep going and going at the current rate. By 2010, a million or more people will be dead and nobody will give a damn. Why? I liked the quote I read somewhere... I'll try and remember it:

"Africa is full of Black People. Sudan is full of Black People. Blacks die everyday in Darfur in all possible ways. Why does nobody care? Because nobody cares about Black People. Nobody cares about Africa."

People just do not care. They do not care that girls and women of all ages are raped over and over every day. They do not care that babies are strung up and disembodied. They do not care that families are shot, dragged by horses, burned alive, etc. These Arabs do this under their view that this is right, and that these people are wrong.

I am going to go out on a limb and say right now that these people are just like the Nazis so many people love to hate.

The real, absolute way for this conflict to stop is for people to care. When people care about something, action is taken. When they don't... nothing happens.

The world is a terrible, cruel, and sad place. People hide everydy behind their religious, spiritual, political views to make the world seem brighter. Want to really make it brighter? Stop getting funds and rising up to get a f***ing cross made on a hill, bibles put into schools, the removal of religion from political systems and all the dumb stuff we do all the time and waste time doing and instead place your views to those that truly need your support, money, and help to live to see tomarrow.

Think I am making all this up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_Conflict

Just google this conflict and you will find hundreds upon hundreds of articles.

Windu Chi
06-09-2007, 07:59 AM
Here is some background for some who don't know about the Darfur Genocide (Yes, I am calling it a Genocide even though the UN says it is not):
Yeah, people in this world continue to let genocide go on unabated.
Genocide seem to be a acceptable recurring phenomenon now, I guess it is going to take millions of Africans to die before someone do a damn thing. :disaprove
But I highly doubt that.
They will do NOTHING!
The death of Brown skins is of no importance.


And as for the US government caring, pfft. We act like we care to make us look good.
Yeah, True_Avery, it seem that almost nobody in the US government give damn about the murder that is happening to Africans but Joe Biden, he seems to care a lot about what's happing over there.
He seems to be the only government official that give's a damn about Africans.






"Africa is full of Black People. Sudan is full of Black People. Blacks die everyday in Darfur in all possible ways. Why does nobody care? Because nobody cares about Black People. Nobody cares about Africa."

The scrouge of racism is rampant in this world,
you got that damn right, no one gives a damn about the death of Africans, it seem like the more death of the people with my brown skin the better.
I'm fill with so much rage about this bulls***, how can the world continue to let genocide to reoccur over and over and over, again? :firemad:
Have nobody in this damn world learned nothing form the Holocaust, Rwanda, Armedian and Bosnian genocides?
Well, I guess not! :mad:

Well, this won't be the last genocide to occur.
It's seems like the society of the world will never learn.
A sorry ass society, it seems to be now.
That I'm ashamed to be apart of. :disaprove

SilentScope001
06-09-2007, 10:51 AM
The game has been played repeatedly and lost in all ways. I was wondering when this topic would be brought up, as I have done a ton of stuff for this as different points.

Want to win the game? Take al-Bashir and his government out of power by any means necessary. There, problem fixed.

Er...so much for diplomacy. :)

Is it okay however to add in complications to that idea? Sudan will not like this plan, and neither would Sudan's allies. And the plan could backfire badly? I just would like to know your views on this, because somehow, the solution you offer seems too simplistic. We should talk on MSN a bit...

I did some research on Darfur already, and it's very, very complex, far more than I realized. I personally would rather use the term "Conflict" than the loaded term of "genocide", because the fact that Sudan signed a peace deal with one rebel group shows that Sudan does not want to destroy all people in the area, they merely want to stop the rebel groups.

mimartin
06-09-2007, 12:18 PM
mimartin, I'm saying as long as Russia and China block resolutions against Sudan the UN can't do anything. All it takes is 1 permanent security council member to block a resolution.


And I not saying everything has to be done with UN approval. This administration has already made that very clear with our invasion of Iraq. Iím just saying something has to be done without taking another year or two to decide the best course of action.

I understand that unfortunately American soldiers are bogged down in a civil war in Iraq for political reasons. I know that we can not send our already stretched beyond their limits troops into another crisis at this time. Even if we were to suddenly find a peaceful solution in Iraq, it would be unfair to send them into another war zone so quickly. The American and Allied soldiers have preformed admirably under the worst conditions and deserve or thanks and a rest.

What Iím saying is we must do what ever is necessary to stop the whole-sale murders in Darfur. Without doing that we are no better than the murders themselves. We know it is happening and by doing nothing we are allowing it to happen. Individuals and organization are trying (and may they all be blessed for trying), but this is a problem that only the governments of the world can fix.

If we are to be a world power and if George Bush is a real leader then he needs to take a real leadership role here. It is time to play hard ball with someone other those third world nations. Tell China that there goods are no longer welcomed here unless they go along with us in Darfur. We may not be the world leader in production any longer, but we are still the leader in consumption. Convince the American people what is going on there is true and use them and our allies to sway world opinion that not only is there a problem, but something must be done now.

Good intentions are not worth anything; we must either do it or admitted that we will not do anything because they do not have anything we want to offer us in return. People are dieing and this is not a game. It is a fact of life and everyone allowing this to go on is guiltily of crimes against humanity. I respectfully disagree with windu6 that this is about racism, to me it is discrimination based on economic status alone. That really does not matter, if it is based on racism, economic status or just laziness it is still wrong and people or still dieing.

True_Avery
06-09-2007, 01:27 PM
I did some research on Darfur already, and it's very, very complex, far more than I realized. I personally would rather use the term "Conflict" than the loaded term of "genocide", because the fact that Sudan signed a peace deal with one rebel group shows that Sudan does not want to destroy all people in the area, they merely want to stop the rebel groups.
Iraq is a conflict because it is battle between groups of people.

Darfur is Genocide because the government is mass slaughtering a group of people because of their beliefs or ethnics. The rebel attacks were the spark that gave the government the initiative to destroy 500,000 civilians in 3 years and put 2.5 million out of home. If this was just a fight between rebels and govenment the death toll would not nearly be this high and people would not be chosen by religion to die. That is the definition of Genocide, just a new way of saying Holocaust.

As for my plan, yes it is rash. But this government is doing rash things and if we do not step in there will be no-one left to save.

Lastly, do some more research real quick. You will see that peace deals have done nothing thus far. On paper, the Janjaweed are disbanded. In reality, they still exist and still mass slaughter people every day. Sanctions are not working because of China, and because of China we can also not bring an large peacekeeping force into the country. You can keep placing peace deals in but its basicly like asking the Nazis in World War II to "please stop killing Jews!" and expect them to stop. Maybe a rash compairison, but Genocide is Genocide.

But, as mimartin said, it is possible for a country to do something without the OK from the UN. Too bad the only country willing to do something as rash as pull al-Bashir out of power is currently in Iraq and going to fight Iran.

SilentScope001
06-09-2007, 03:40 PM
/sigh. I never realized so much conterversy over a province the size of France. It seems to be even more worse than the conterversy on Iraq.

Basically, TA, we really do need to talk. I need to find the correct words to say in order to sastify everyone without appearing to be biased.

But, to defend my choice of Conflict:

1) The JEM and the SLA are the two rebel groups that rebelled in Darfur after tribal conflicts. They claim the Arabs was being discirimantory towards the natives. Their claims seem a bit legit, and a bit justified. So, they attacked and started a war. And the Sudan army fought back. They also support Self Defense Groups to have the Arabs defend themselves against the rebels...Sudan claims that these Self Defense Groups and the Janjweed are different and that Sudan hates the Janjweed. Other people say that the Self Defense Groups are basically the Janjweed. One very famous person who leads the Self Defense Groups (who happens to also be accused leading the Janjweed) claims that the original meaning of "Janjweed" is a curse word that is now being used to attack everyone. From what I conclude...most people who are Janjweed really don't call thesmelves Janjweed.

The peace deal was bound to fall apart because 1/2 the SLA supported it. The other half splintered from the SLA and continued the rebellion. And the JEM refused to talk with Sudan in the first place. You can't have peace with half a rebellion group.

I assume that since you have done research, you know what the SLA and the JEM are, and about the spilt in the SLA that led to the collaspe of that Peace Deal. The SLA stands for the Sudan Liberation Army and the JEM is the Justice and Equality Movement. JEM has a bit of an Islamist bent, but both the SLA and the JEM claim to fight for the same causes and allied at one point...altough they seem to splinter based on tribal affilations.

Prehaps the main reason the fighting is intense is because of fear that if Darfur does succed in leaving Sudan, then other provinces may seek to do the exact same rebellion, causing for all of Sudan to Balkanize. The Balkan Wars was very bloody, and nobody wants Sudan to collaspe, least of all Sudan, China, the rest of Africa, and the oil market.

2) This game's goal is to have a NPOV. Many people do dispute the term Genocide, because it seems very very loaded and makes Sudan looks evil. You may be right. I might secretly agree with you. But you may be wrong as well. And since the term genocide means different things to different people, there lies the possiblity that both Sudan (claiming it is not genocide) and you (claiming it is genocide) are correct. I want this game to target everyone, not just a small subsection. Some people may object to Genocide, but nobody is going to say: "There is no conflict! Everyone is living in total peace! Everyone lives happily every after." I don't want to make people mad by seemingly promoting a point of view.

Hence, I really think a private convo would be good for sorting this out. What time will you be on MSN?
===
As for my plan, yes it is rash. But this government is doing rash things and if we do not step in there will be no-one left to save.

It is extreme, but it will be in the game, for the sake of completness. I'm not going to exclude it. But there are consquences involved. Sudan will not like it, for one thing. There may be other methods to solving the problem. Will they work? That I'm deciding right now.

In all fairness, it sounds quite similar to "the UN planting troops in Darfur" solution, except it will extend to ALL of Sudan, meaning that other rebel groups thinking or wanting to leave Sudan could possibly do so once US troops march through. It might just be folded into the possible "USA Intervention" ending, in which a group of nations, working outside of the UN, with the USA in the lead, march into Darfur.

Nancy Allen``
06-10-2007, 07:38 AM
Tell me more about this Iraq war simulation. I think it and the proposal for a Darfur version focusing on diplomacy is a wonderful idea.

SilentScope001
06-10-2007, 09:28 AM
linky (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=172444)

Altough I think I made a typo when I said it was free, I don't think it will be free, but I haven't decided on price.

Nancy Allen``
06-10-2007, 05:51 PM
Groovy. The thread's half a year since the last post so here's some real and possible random events to help you out.

Al Qaeda rocking up to Iraq to kill Americans
Political wrangling over war budget
Anti war movement intensifies and escalates to violence
Human shields return to place themselves in harms way of America's operations
Britain and Australia pull their troops home
America goes to war with Iran and\or North Korea and Saudi Arabia, spreading their forces too thin in Iraq
Insurgents manage to kill the Iraqi president in a suicide bombing
The United Nations denounces America, possibly paving the way for a European dominated organisation
France and Germany cut all ties to America, going so far as to not allow American business in their countries

GarfieldJL
06-10-2007, 06:33 PM
To be honest the French barring the US from their markets isn't very likely, furthermore I think some countries would support us. However we need to really rethink whom are allies are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279973,00.html

Seems that the former Eastern Block Countries from when the Soviet Union was in existence actually have an extremely different view towards the United States. Seriously, President Bush is booed and everything else in Germany and France, yet he gets a hero's welcome in a country that was liberated 20-30 years ago.

The odds of the United Nations honestly doing anything serious as far as Darfur is slim to none. Reason being that France, Russia, and China do to much business with Sudan, just like they were in Iraq.

Windu Chi
06-11-2007, 05:44 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279973,00.htm
l No news from them should be trusted.



The odds of the United Nations honestly doing anything serious as far as Darfur is slim to none. Reason being that France, Russia, and China do to much business with Sudan, just like they were in Iraq.
Is nothing, not slim to none.
They're useless!

The U.N. won't do s**t.
The Genocide there will continue to go on as usual.

mur'phon
06-11-2007, 05:48 AM
You could have an ending where you convince the AU to get their act together and deploy a sizeable force. Of course, this will probably be harder than convincing China/US/other countries to deploy troops.

SilentScope001
06-11-2007, 10:38 AM
Groovy. The thread's half a year since the last post so here's some real and possible random events to help you out.

Well, it was a bit too late, since I did finish the game. However, thanks anyway, and in case I do return back to the game, you did give me some good ideas.

You could have an ending where you convince the AU to get their act together and deploy a sizeable force. Of course, this will probably be harder than convincing China/US/other countries to deploy troops.

The bad news is that already happened. It is much easier to convince the AU to place a force over there, since the AU has some troops over there. And Sudan is actually trying to make a even more sizable force...as a compromise to prevent a UN Peacekeeping Force from landing there.

Might be an possible action, but not an ending.

Any Other Discussion of Darfur: There are other topics where you could talk about how ethical or not ethical Darfur is. Can you please redirect your views over there? Thanks.

Jae Onasi
06-11-2007, 11:55 PM
Please continue discussion of Darfur here.

Please take any discussions of news organization bias to the newly minted News Organizations and Political Bias (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=179354) Thread.

Thank you!