The "mandate: Shoot ONLY if shot at" and instructions to avoid confrontation are common for ALL UN Peacekeeping Operations BB. There is also a popularly held misconception that UN Peacekeepers are sent into situations to solve problems and protect people. There are clearly defined conditions that must be met in any conflict situation before UN "Peacekeepers" can be deployed, with the over-riding proviso that if fighting resumes between factions the UN Peacekeepers are withdrawn.

What is needed in Darfur is for the UN Secretary General to recognise the situation for what it is - Genocide - then clearly state that in a report to the Security Council. The UN, according to it's Charter, must then act to prevent further bloodshed. What would then have to be raised would be a UN Force tasked with the following objectives:
a. Provide security in the area by actively confronting and engaging those armed groups involved
b. Disarm all factions and armed forces operating in that area, by force if necessary.
c. Assist and protect aid agencies in their efforts
d. Force negotiations between the central Government an the rebel factions.
e. UN presence maintained in the area initially to protect the general population and deter future Janjaweed/Sudanese Army incursions.

The above force would not be a "Peacekeeping" Force in UN terms and at present I doubt whether the member states of the UN would be willing to front up such a force. So as with Rwanda, Kofi Annan and the UN, can once again dither and turn away. Everything stated above should have been done by Mr. Annan at least two years ago.

Old Guy, I wonder if Hugo Chavez, being the populist people's President that some proclaim him to be, would consider going to the area to see for himself. Somehow I doubt it.