Home >> Africa >> Sudan  Email  Print Will the UN resolution on Darfur make any difference? Saberi Roy - 8/12/2007 Finally, the UN Security Council has authorized 26,000 troops and police to protect civilians in Darfur and the peacekeepers are also allowed to use force to protect the civilians and aid workers. But considering the fact that 200,000 civilians have died in the region in the last four years and 2.5 million people have been displaced, it’s a tough job for the UN. Sudan’s pro-militia government has been resisting UN intervention all these years but finally agreed to deployment of UN forces after insisting on considerable changes to the resolution. What critics consider as a largely ‘watered down’ resolution, the UN peacekeeping force will not be able to seize illegal arms as proposed initially but can simply ‘monitor’ such weapons. All mention of sanctions, international pressure or military action against Sudan and strong statements against the pro-militia government have been deliberately kept out of the resolution. Thus the resolution stands weakened but there are other provisions such as closer human rights watch, protection for humanitarian aid workers and monitoring of arms sale and supply in the region. The question remains whether this UN peacekeeping operation also known as the UNAMID or the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur will work to actually end the continuous conflict in the region.
First of all, the resolution is not strong enough and does not send a strong statement to the Sudanese government which is absolutely necessary. This conflict is largely political rather than social but the UN has closed its eyes and does not seem to focus on the political aspects of the conflict. Urging peace talks between rebel groups and Sudanese government does not make the resolution politically emphatic in any way. Considering the resolution, it is clear that the UN wants to suggest that the conflict in Darfur is mainly due to social reasons and all too simple. This shows that the UN either does not understand the dimensions of the conflict or is simply refusing to acknowledge certain obvious facts (for diplomatic reasons?). The Sudanese government has been encouraging and supporting the militia but there is no strong condemnation by the UN and now with the UN peacekeepers and money flowing in, will the Sudanese government suddenly change for the better and start working for the civilians and against the militia? Unlikely. Even if the Sudanese government is apparently working with the UN, the story might well turn around anytime and there may be too many impediments for the UN peacekeepers. The second loophole in the UN resolution is the emphasis on ‘monitoring’ sale and supply of illegal arms but the peacekeepers have no right to seize these weapons. Now, the term ‘monitoring’ can have huge implications especially in a third-world country like Sudan. What do you mean by monitoring sale and supply of weapons? It simply means that you watch these weapons being sold, inform a few people and then there will be ‘negotiations’ and finally the UN officials will be told that there are no illegal weapons around! Yes, monitoring means corruption and this can be all too true in Africa.
The UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur is obviously necessary and in fact peacekeepers should have been sent 4 years back but the mission should have a more definite and stronger agenda. The UN resolution has no step by step agenda on how the crisis could be tackled. There are broader issues mentioned in the resolution such as working closely with the Sudanese government with regular planning and assessments on the mission’s progress urging greater support from the international community to end the humanitarian crisis in the region.
So what can we expect from such a weak resolution which does not consider all dimensions of the conflict and has too many loopholes to bring in effective results? Predictably, there will be some initial respite and some protection given to civilians and aid workers although there won’t be effective results and the resolution will have to be changed in a few years’ time to completely control or stop the activities of the janjaweed militia. So the current resolution is only highly diplomatic and politically correct document, possibly just a route to entering Sudan and having a UN presence in Sudan, which is not bad for a start. This is sort of ‘beta-testing’ and the resolution will have to be revamped several times in the coming years to actually make it effective and to finally make any difference in the region.
|
