MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The UN And Darfur
The situation in Darfur is not the UN's fault, but the UN, as a body, also hasn't been able to act effectively to ameliorate or redress it. There does seem to be a concerted effort over a long period of time to abuse the civilian population to frighten them away from their land. See SCA's post on Darfur and this article:
One good source of news about the situation in Darfur is MSF (Medicins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders). Recently two of the top officials of the MSF effort in Darfur were arrested by the Sudanese. The charges are now being dropped:
Sudan is also suffering the aftereffects of decades of strife; MSF discusses a new famine in the south produced by drought. And conflict is now breaking out in the east; there seems to be a rebellion against the government there. The BBC news index for Sudan is here.
Update: In the comments, Boomr suggested ending the practice of veto-wielding Security Council members. What do you think? We don't seem to have evolved a useful method of dealing with abusive rulers or abusive ruling factions. Would the UN's current structure provide any more of a useful structure for dealing with the situation of the 1930's if a Hifler were carving up Europe today? I suspect not.
Under-Secretary General Jan Egeland told the Security Council women and children were being systematically raped and assaulted in the ravaged region and urged Sudanese authorities to do more to protect civilians and end a culture of impunity.Egeland's right, but he needs support. So in this context the fact that we have no UN Ambassador seems more serious. Bolton's nomination was filibustered this week, and No Oil For Pacifists has the scoop on that.
Addressing the U.N. Security Council on the need for more international effort to protect civilians in armed conflicts, Egeland said Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo were among the countries where sexual violence was worst.
One good source of news about the situation in Darfur is MSF (Medicins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders). Recently two of the top officials of the MSF effort in Darfur were arrested by the Sudanese. The charges are now being dropped:
"Hopefully we will be able to again focus all our attention on providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict in Darfur, most of whom are entirely dependent on aid", said Geoff Prescott, General Director of MSF (Holland). "The people in Darfur are still suffering from violence and extreme medical needs and MSF will continue to stand by them."There are reports of Chinese troops (or armed workers) in the Sudan guarding the oil-producing areas under contract to them. The situation there is inflammatory. We need UN-sponsored efforts to protect the civilian population. Obviously it is not in the Sudanese government's interests to have any meaningful intervention in some of these areas and it is hard to see how the world can make it be. China has said it will veto any sanction of Sudan.
Paul Foreman and Vincent Hoedt were arrested at the end of May. Both were charged with publishing false information, undermining the Sudanese society and spying in connection with the publication of the report 'The Crushing Burden of Rape: Sexual Violence in Darfur' in March.
Sudan is also suffering the aftereffects of decades of strife; MSF discusses a new famine in the south produced by drought. And conflict is now breaking out in the east; there seems to be a rebellion against the government there. The BBC news index for Sudan is here.
Update: In the comments, Boomr suggested ending the practice of veto-wielding Security Council members. What do you think? We don't seem to have evolved a useful method of dealing with abusive rulers or abusive ruling factions. Would the UN's current structure provide any more of a useful structure for dealing with the situation of the 1930's if a Hifler were carving up Europe today? I suspect not.
Comments:
<< Home
Boomr, only a coalition of nations under the UN umbrella can probably exert enough pressure to help the victims of this conflict in Sudan.
Your proposal about end vetos in the Security Council is very interesting. Let me think about it. I hope others will too.
One of the problems that I see with the UN was that it was set up to repress armed conflict, not to serve humanitarian interests. Perhaps the UN's focus does need a change.
Your proposal about end vetos in the Security Council is very interesting. Let me think about it. I hope others will too.
One of the problems that I see with the UN was that it was set up to repress armed conflict, not to serve humanitarian interests. Perhaps the UN's focus does need a change.
If the veto was rescinded, Israel would have been ripped to shreds, years ago.
The UN is rife with anti semitism. Read Anne Bayefsky.
The UN is rife with anti semitism. Read Anne Bayefsky.
True. True. I can't even count the resolutions against Israel. Sometimes it seems like the main UN agenda.
Siggy has a good point. The veto is both a hinderance and a protection. You have to take the good with the bad, I guess.
Boomr, despite the horrendous casualties in the Sudan, anything but localized peacekeeping may now be impossible, and it seems that localized peacekeeping isn't working.
If the US tries to go in alone I believe we would ignite WWIII. I don't think that excuses inaction; I just think we need at least four nations to go in with us so that it is clear that China's interests are not being abused.
I would prefer to get China, India, Japan and Germany to participate, because frankly I think Schroeder owes the world. It is time India is treated more seriously; China should not feel that it is being isolated; Germany a.k.a. Schroeder owes the world several favors, Japan would fill out the east.
If the US tries to go in alone I believe we would ignite WWIII. I don't think that excuses inaction; I just think we need at least four nations to go in with us so that it is clear that China's interests are not being abused.
I would prefer to get China, India, Japan and Germany to participate, because frankly I think Schroeder owes the world. It is time India is treated more seriously; China should not feel that it is being isolated; Germany a.k.a. Schroeder owes the world several favors, Japan would fill out the east.
The GA resolutions are one thing- without veto power, the SC resolutions are quite another.
Let's not kid ourselves- Israel would have been booted out, years ago.
Let's not kid ourselves- Israel would have been booted out, years ago.
Boomr - well, recently the Chinese people have been rioting against the Japanese. However, an international force, authorized by the UN, could quite possibly get them to cooperate in a common mission.
After all, we conducted military exchange missions before the fall of the Soviet Union, remember? I think China's interest is in the oilfields; I think the Sudanese government's interest is in making sure that they get the revenues from the oilfields. I would bet anything that China has armed workers or troops in there not to take over the country but to protect their oilfields from the conflict. Any intervention that does not include China will be seen as a threat by China. They are sensitive to their image in the world to some extent. They might be more than willing to cooperate. It's not like you have to toss the Japanese in side-by-side, either.
We are running out of time to build any real framework for consensual action in the world. Boomr, France plays its own game always. I would trust the Chinese more.
Boomr, sometimes I think that resolutions against Israel are often passed as a backhanded way to slap at the US. However, without the veto, I suspect within a year Israel would find itself blockaded by order of the UN. I wouldn't want to risk it.
After all, we conducted military exchange missions before the fall of the Soviet Union, remember? I think China's interest is in the oilfields; I think the Sudanese government's interest is in making sure that they get the revenues from the oilfields. I would bet anything that China has armed workers or troops in there not to take over the country but to protect their oilfields from the conflict. Any intervention that does not include China will be seen as a threat by China. They are sensitive to their image in the world to some extent. They might be more than willing to cooperate. It's not like you have to toss the Japanese in side-by-side, either.
We are running out of time to build any real framework for consensual action in the world. Boomr, France plays its own game always. I would trust the Chinese more.
Boomr, sometimes I think that resolutions against Israel are often passed as a backhanded way to slap at the US. However, without the veto, I suspect within a year Israel would find itself blockaded by order of the UN. I wouldn't want to risk it.
Boomr - well, because the US holds a veto of such actions, right now the UN can't blockade Israel. I believe it would have if we weren't holding the veto power though.
Yes, Israel has launched a lot of preemptive defensive strikes. Whether all of them were justified is completely beyond my knowledge. However, Israel has also been under fire in a way few nations ever have. It is living in a continuous state of low-level war.
Post a Comment
Yes, Israel has launched a lot of preemptive defensive strikes. Whether all of them were justified is completely beyond my knowledge. However, Israel has also been under fire in a way few nations ever have. It is living in a continuous state of low-level war.
<< Home
