United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769

[enigma]

Peacekeepers finally being sent to Dafur


Can someone explain to me why it has taken them this long and why they were not deployed (by force if necessary) years ago when this all started.

If I remember rightly it was around the time of the Iraq war beginning and that Kofi Anan dude sat debating with the rest of the council weather it was genocide or not instead of sending people in.

So now, hundreds of thousands dead, millions made refuges and there gonner send in less then 30 000 men to restore peace!

Grrrr


If I also remember rightly the UK said they would get a brigade together and send in 5000 men when it all kicked off. I don’t recall any other countries stating they would do the same but if they did what happened, why did they or our guys go in?

The only people as I understand it who sent troops in were other African troops around 7000 of them … who will be incorporated into this new force …. So the UN is sending what just over 20 000 dudes?!




*end of Carls rant at his opinion of the UN*

[Hyperion2010]

Quite honestly it was because there was no peace to keep....

The world claims it doesnt like genocide, but it sure seems like it doesnt want to kill people to prevent it from happening either.

[2ltben]

Its about damn time. Even with the worst case scenario, UN peacekeepers will stop attacks on refugee camps. More realistically, the refugee camps will be safer, food and water will actually be able to get through to the people its intended to go to, and the militias won't be stupid enough to touch them because the gendarmeries in Khartoum that have been giving them weapons will be forced to stop.

And Hyperion, the governments and international community doesn't care if the weak suffer at the hands of the strong. That's why NGOs like Amnesty International, the Red Cross & Red Crescent Movement, and the Mercy Corps are so important. Governments have no end of issues at home to deal with, its the responsibility of the people to keep the governments in check.


Quite honestly it was because there was no peace to keep....

The world claims it doesnt like genocide, but it sure seems like it doesnt want to kill people to prevent it from happening either.
The Janjaweed served a role similar to the Taliban in Afghanistan until Khartoum started shipping weapons to the Darfur Arabs. One of the most crucial objectives is to keep the Baggara Confederation, to which the majority of Arabs in the region belong, a neutral party. There remains the possibility of giving them weapons and creating a proxy war between NATO and the Libyans and Sudanese (the Libyans created the Janjaweed as an insurgency movement when Libya had plans to invade Chad. After the West interfered, the Janjaweed fled to Darfur and started taking over. France stepped in and set things straight, but the Janjaweed tried again and obviously succeeded).

However, arming Baggara will just create another militant party that we're going to have to deal with in a decade or two, just like the Taliban, the Iraqi military, and the Janjaweed themselves.

[NightStalker]

A agree with 2ltben's second point. Funding a fighting group with weapons and money will just create blowback in another twenty years. I'd prefer we did it ourselves.

[Kaos]

What exactly is the UN going to do?

Most of their peacekeeping missions end in widespread violence, corruption and a similar situation as before. Dropping a few thousand troops into the worst humanitarian crisis in the world isn't going to solve anything.

And in regards to your first question, from what I hear the reason why it took this long was because China kept vetoing every proposal to send in peacekeepers. Apparently they back the government in Khartoum with whom they have economic treaties and some have accused them of funding genocide and various attacks.

[DavidUpton]

Unfortunately the UN's ability to work as an effective fighting/peacekeeping force is severely hampered by all the internal petty politics that plagues most natons. Instead of thinking about the problems at hand, the different countries just squabble about their differences.

[Jensen]

The UN is a political arbiter that will never work! Everyone in the UN is looking out for their own countries good. And therefore everything the UN decide is bound to fail.

Quite frankly, i don't see why on earth the west should send men and woman down there to die for an already lost cause! Hell, i think we have enough shit to take care of in Afghanistan and Iraq (for those that are still there).

Deal with your own problems before poking your nose into other problems!

[DavidUpton]

Er...

So you are saying it is perfectly fine for genocides to take place while we sort out a few political debates at home?

[Kaos]

Er...

So you are saying it is perfectly fine for genocides to take place while we sort out a few political debates at home?

I think it's ironic the way we, the Western world, choose to pick out fights. We completely ignored the acts by the Nazi's against the Communists, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc. during the 1930's, we let Israel get away with killing Palestinian civilians everyday, we condone Pol Pot until the very end, we supported Suharto in his political purges, we choose to ignore the way China treats Tibet, etc. etc.

Occasionally the UN will decide to intervene but often this is more a symbolic act as the amount of resources that go into it are no way near enough to sort out either the political or military problems going on. An example of this was the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Very reluctantly the UN intervened by sending in peacekeepers. However they was no actual strategy involved in defusing the crisis and what followed was attacks on the UN by rebels and the UN's eventual retreat.

Unless every member of the Security Council sits down and works out a coherent, well-funded and well-resourced plan to not only halt the atrocities in Darfur but stabilise the entire region I believe any token force will fail.

The timeline leading up to the current UN Resolution is interesting in a number of ways. In 2005 the UN Inquiry into Darfur found that whilst mass murders were occurring, it was not genocide because "intent" was missing. In response the US congress passed a unanimous vote calling the conflict a genocide. However they did not pursue a plan of intervention. In March, 2005 Kofi Annan requested the Security Council deploy 10,000 peacekeepers to support the existing 2000 African Union troops. The US did not support this proposition and it failed. In 2006 when the US gains presidency of the Security Council, it passes a resolution to begin the planning of an intervention force but refuses to commit troops. In April of that year, John Bolton proposes sanctions against those implicated in genocide but Russia and China block the proposal. In August of 2007 a report is published showing China is giving military and financial aid to the government of Sudan, bringing it under international pressure.

July 2007 - Resolution 1769 is passed. Peacekeepers to be deployed by the 31st of December with an initial mandate to 31st July 2008.

Looking at the history of the UN's role in this crisis shows on clear trend. No one with the power to do anything actually wants to get their hands dirty. The USA, China and Russia (The three most powerfuly members of the Security Council) have all vetoed various resolutions at different times. It seems the only reason the UN is doing anything now is due to the enormous amount of public pressure, the intervention of high-profile celebrities and China worried about possible boycotts of the 2008 Olympic games.

Back to what I said earlier - The problem is only going to be solved when the UN Security Council sincerely work together to develop something more than a short-term 6 month plan. Right now it seems the motivation is somewhat lacking.

[2ltben]

I think it's ironic the way we, the Western world, choose to pick out fights. We completely ignored the acts by the Nazi's against the Communists, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc. during the 1930's, we let Israel get away with killing Palestinian civilians everyday, we condone Pol Pot until the very end, we supported Suharto in his political purges, we choose to ignore the way China treats Tibet, etc. etc.
We denounce Iran, yet befriend Equatorial Guinea.

btw, who bumped this? At least find some information that's a bit more up to date before forming an opinion.

[Kaos]

We denounce Iran, yet befriend Equatorial Guinea.

btw, who bumped this? At least find some information that's a bit more up to date before forming an opinion.

Shit, I didn't even know it was old.

[Jensen]

Nightstalker, bumped this into life.

[css2d]

After Somalia, Clinton said "The Un should learn to say "No" "

The problem is, the UN can't.

With the words of the then UN Secretary General:

"It is not the UN which says Yes or No to anything. It is the Member States. The Member States said Yes to Somalia. The Task of the Organisation is merely to scrap together the troops and money required."

The UN force mainly can do nothing because of the mandates.

Firstly, peacekeeping missions can only be started when all 5 permanent security council members (USA, France, Russia, UK and China) agree or abstain to it. (Every of its members has veto power, so basically the other countrys in the security council are only needed to get a peacekeeping mission going.) If there are 9 votes in favour, the mission can start, but:



The mandates must be approved by the host country. Thus orders to blue helmets always sound like: "Do not fire expect in selfdefence and never on host country authorities."

Not even when those authorities start slaugthering thousands of people under the blue helmet noses?

Not even then.