 |
UN Setbacks in Darfur |
 |
For a principled but toothless UN, caught between lukewarm international support and hostile opponents, trying to do the right thing results in setback after setback.
The world has waited nearly five years for the genocide in Darfur to stop. Finally, the UN deployed peacekeepers - 9,000 out of a promised 26,000. What, exactly, can such a small force achieve, especially when the Sudanese army recently displayed its willingness to “accidentally” attack them? When the Janjaweed still roam free?
The UN’s top peacekeeping official, Jean-Marie, Guehenno, has already warned that the mission may fail, citing “obstructionism by the Sudanese government, the failure of other countries to supply needed transportation equipment, and continued violence” as contributing factors.
Most of Mr. Guéhenno’s statement of the stark realities facing the peacekeepers dealt with foot-dragging tactics by the Sudanese government in Khartoum.
In an illustration of how pervasive those blocking moves have been, he said that in the hours leading up to the change-of-command ceremony in Darfur, the Sudanese even objected to the planned “rehatting†exchange of African Union green berets and helmets for the blue ones of the United Nations.
More important, he said, Sudan was still, after more than three months of negotiations, stalling on agreements for providing the land necessary for bases, on the approval to conduct flights and other operations at night, on the legal status of the force and on the inclusion of non-African specialized units that are considered essential to the force’s success.
Furthermore, the obstacles in Sudan make other nations wary of getting involved. The UN force particularly needs more ground and air vehicles to effectively cover Darfur, but support is hard to muster.
The looming failure in Darfur leaves us at an ugly impasse.
I support the core principles behind the UN. I support international peacekeeping efforts in zones of genocide and conflict. But the small size of the UN’s Darfur force, compared with the vastness of the problem it confronts, means that the UN’s presence in Sudan is largely symbolic. What it symbolizes, for many, is failure.
We must rethink the idea of the UN at a fundamental level. Should the UN have real power? How can we balance competing demands of national sovereignty, international stability, and human rights? How can the UN convince member states to make good on their promises and commitments?
The haphazard way in which the UN approaches conflicts does not necessarily reflect on the men and women who work there. Rather, it reflects on an international system that has not truly committed itself to multilateral solutions for conflict. Until a deep philosophical shift occurs, I am sad to say that UN peacekeeping efforts, praiseworthy as they are, will continue to meet with almost insurmountable setbacks.
Until a deep philosophical shift occurs, I am sad to say that UN peacekeeping efforts, praiseworthy as they are, will continue to meet with almost insurmountable setbacks
- Amen brother.
P.S. I know it’s a small force but is anyone in that UN force named John McClane? If so, you’re selling this unit way short.