This is too complicated a peacekeeping mission for international parties to effectively intervene
Originally the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) was set up in an attempt to keep peace in the Darfur region. However, these forces were too small and the violence in the region couldn’t be contained. In 2005 the UN proposed sending a 20,000 strong peacekeeping force to merge with AU forces as part of UNAMID (United Nation-African Union Mission in Darfur). The Sudanese president al-Bashir then refused international support in Sudan, claiming “we don’t want Sudan to turn into another Iraq”. It wasn’t until AMIS was on the point of collapse in 2007 that the UN were finally allowed to enter Darfur, allowing the situation to become much worse.
The conflict in Sudan has been complex in both the number of sides, ethnicities and tribes involved in the fighting, but also the number of reasons for each side fighting. Although the war official began following rebel groups fighting the government over accusations over the oppression of non-Arabs in Darfur, there have been many issues such as land disputes between nomads and farmers, water access, and religious, ethnic and social differences that have been seen to have contributed. What has made this situation so much more complicated then is the apartheid like system of Ethnic separation that is so ingrained and difficult to control.
Furthermore following allegations of genocide and war crimes made against the government, the reception of international aid has become increasingly questioned by the government. This has complicated international support of the government and rebels, the humanitarian crisis and any possibility of peacekeeping or the end of violence. What is the right thing to do if international help is unwanted? With feet on the ground and aid repeatedly offered and denied, what other choice do international parties have than to impose sanctions on uncooperative state leaders?