In order to get Sudan to agree to the PKO, the UN capitulated to the stipulation that UN peacekeepers will not step foot in Darfur. Darfur falls under the purview of the AU PKO... and they are doing a horrible job (over a hundred ceasefire violations in the past two months). Sudan was also allowed right of refusal based on the make-up of the UN PKO... and it is already saying it is unhappy with the proposed composition of the force and wants further negotiations. So peacekeeper deployment is at least 6 months away and probably much longer. There are cards out there that Darfurians are dying at a rate of 600 to 3,000 a day, so delay is fatal. There is also excellent evidence that the North-South peace accord actually feeds the violence because it frees up government troops which Khartoum will use in Darfur. As far as the genocide, not genocide argument goes, I think a strong case can be made that the UN is guilty of equivocation... they say Sudan is not committing genocide, but may be committing acts with genocidal intent. There is evidence (and I haven't explored it enough to tell you how strong it is) that the UN would declare genocide if an ICC tribunal affirmed Sudan's intent as genocidal... and the only thing standing in the way of the ICC tribunal is the US. The Congressional delegation that just returned from Darfur continues to label the situation a genocide, says humanitarian aid is not getting to the displaced, and projects the number of casualties is much higher than Sudan, the AU, and the EU are reporting. You may not want to run this case the same way you did a couple of months ago, but it can still be run.