One has to wonder if the United Nations has learned anything from mistakes made in Rwanda and Bosnia.

It was during these ethnic killing sprees in the 1990s that the U.N. sent peacekeepers, armed only with good intentions and weak mandates. As a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal pointed out, after watching nearly a million Rwandans murdered in 1994, "the West realized that the U.N. mission in Bosnia was also doomed to failure."

It wasn't until NATO countries stepped in and applied force and diplomatic pressure that Bosnia's war came to an end.

Sadly, history seems to be repeating itself. Earlier this month, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorizing 26,000 troops and police to protect civilians in Darfur. But much like the forementioned missions, there's not much bite to its bark — and that, in large part, is due to China and Russia, which demanded the resolution be weakened. The Sudanese government has also demanded to be part of the peacekeeping selection process.

Indeed, the whole mission is a result of political diplomacy.

The original resolution gave peacekeepers the authority to seize illegal arms, and included tough language on sanctions, international pressure, military action against Sudan and condemnation of the pro-militia government. Instead, the peacekeepers are only allowed to "monitor" any such weapons in Darfur. What good that will do is a mystery.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Africa, argued that under the resolution, "the Sudanese government would evade its requirements without consequences."

Sudan's government is accused of using a militia known as the janjaweed to retaliate against a rebellion by ethnic African tribes. An approximated 200,000 civilians have died in the past four years, and 2.5 million have been displaced. This resolution should be considered nothing more than a start of what should be a strong and effective plan to end this genocide.