Display:
Sadly, I think you're reflecting the reality of the situation.

  1. No "peacekeeping force" can prevent a government sponsored ethnic cleansing. "Peacekeeping forces" have neither the mandate nor usually the firepower to do such a job.

  2. Observers on the ground can help prevent small atrocites by virtue of "being witness" but if the local government is determined, it will throw the observers out.

  3. Our international system relies on agreement between competing "great powers" on the UN Security Council. Without it, no "blue helmet" invasion can get UN approval. As has been observed, the day any country upsets the US, China and Russia all at once, it will feel the full force of the UN.

  4. Likewise, without "great power" agreement, there is little chance of diplomatic pressure preventing the ethnic cleansing unless the country happens to be economically dependent on just a couple of countries. Sudan has some oil, which means at the moment sanctions are unlikely to happen and/or work.

  5. In short, it's going to be horrific.

What can be done? Well, we could engage in some "liberal hawking" and stage a NATO invasion. But, the killer is not winning the invasion, but what happens next. Short of setting up a separate state, it's hard to see how an invasion will solve the friction between the central government of Sudan and those in this southern area. And do we have the political capital and goodwill to go and create a new country after an invasion? Or indeed the strategic reserve of troops to do it whilst holding down commitments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon (plus minor engagements elsewhere)?

I think not.

Which is easy to type when you don't live in Darfur, but I don't see any good solutions. I'd like to see a much stronger diplomatic effort, but I think it will fail because China has no interest in recognizing the rights of minorities (c.f Tibet) and besides neither China nor Russia have many reasons to trust the West, it seems at the moment.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 09:52:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Forgive me for being cynical, but this all really reminds me of Rwanda.

Never again, until next time, huh?

Interesting how the most powerful countries in the world are expert decision makers when it comes to issues of maintaining their own power, esp the economic power, over the rest of the world, but when it comes to doing something just because it is decent and humane and ethically responsible, they all act like confused, oblivious, indecisive followers waiting for someone else to "go first."

Please, don't let them fool you.  If the UN really wanted to help these people, they would.  These countries can invade half the Middle East, pay to send people into outerspace, negotiate the ownership of the world's natural resources.  It's not that we can't end a genocide.  It's that it is not a priority.  Life in Europe and America and Russia and China will go on without poor people in Africa.  

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 10:46:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid that you're over-stating the power of the powerful.

First, the most powerful countries in the world are crap at making decisions when in comes to maintaining their own power. Let me point at Imperial Britain and the current US regime, which has massively undermined its power, as obvious examples of this.  They're also shit at negotiating the ownership of resources. Generally this involves giving them to people who fund and support people who are trying to destroy the most powerful countries.

Second, the result of their invading the middle east is, among other things, to make clear that we need to ask "what next"? We could, maybe, stop a genocide for a while by invading. What then? Occupy the area for a few decades? Split up the existing state into a few more?

Going into space is easy: that's just a problem of technology and money.

Rwanda might have been doable if we had intervened very, very early on when the government were busy whipping up the people into a frenzy.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 10:53:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, of course it reminds you of Rwanda. Why would it be any different. Most people don't care. That's a basic political reality.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 11:02:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Metatone wrote:
No "peacekeeping force" can prevent a government sponsored ethnic cleansing. "Peacekeeping forces" have neither the mandate nor usually the firepower to do such a job.

What about Chapter VII of the UN charta?

I just googled this from Africa Action: How the UN Can Stop Genocide in Darfur. Don't know if it is all true. Check for yourself:

Precedents Prove Case for UN-African Peacekeeping Operation

Under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the Security Council may take such action as necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. The members of the UN have previously shown their willingness and capability to invoke Chapter 7 peace enforcement and peace-building instruments in response to conflict in Africa. Now, the UN can and must furnish the AU with a strong civilian protection mandate and with international backing in the form of a UN peacekeeping mission to support the AU in Darfur.

Precedents show that the UN is a viable source for effective and appropriate international intervention to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. The following examples also show instances of successful cooperation between African regional bodies, which intervened as "first responders", and the UN, which acted to reinforce their efforts with a larger international force.

(1) In Sierra Leone, after the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) intervened to enforce the peace in 1998, the UN Security Council acted in 1999 to authorize an international force with a robust mandate, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, to work alongside and coordinate with the ECOWAS mission. In late 1999, ECOWAS troops in Sierra Leone were "re-hatted" as UN peacekeepers, and transitioned into a UN mission the next year. The transition in early 2000 was initially rocky, but the Security Council rallied behind the mission and boosted its strength, and the mission was able to deter conflict and restore a secure environment to Sierra Leone.

(2) In Liberia, ECOWAS intervened to enforce the peace in 2003, and in August of that year it was granted the authority and mandate by the UN Security Council, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, to establish security and facilitate humanitarian assistance in Liberia and to pave the way for a UN intervention. The UN Security Council acted swiftly and decisively to authorize and deploy (within 2 months) a larger multinational intervention in Liberia. The ECOWAS troops acted as the first contingent of the UN mission to Liberia, and authority was successfully transferred to the UN operation in October 2003. This international operation has been successful in promoting peace and stability in Liberia.

(3) In Côte d'Ivoire, the UN Security Council granted authority to ECOWAS and to France in 2003 to take the necessary steps to provide security and protection in Côte d'Ivoire. In 2004, a UN operation was authorized to take over from the ECOWAS force and work alongside the French forces to facilitate the implementation of the peace agreement and to provide protection in Côte d'Ivoire.

(4) In Burundi, the AU authorized and deployed its first peacekeeping operation in 2003, when the institution was itself only one year old. The AU operation in Burundi faced financial and logistical challenges, but it was able to oversee the cease-fire and provide some stability. It coordinated with the UN to ensure a relatively smooth transition to a UN operation in Burundi after one year.

Also under a Chapter 7 mandate, the UN already has a precedent of authorizing and deploying a peacekeeping operation in southern Sudan. In March 2005, the UN passed a resolution establishing a UN mission in Sudan (UNMIS) with up to 10,000 personnel and a mandate to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. At present, UNMIS comprises some 4,000 troops from more than 50 countries, the majority of which are outside the African continent.

These examples illustrate several important lessons, which must now be applied to a UN intervention in support of the AU mission in Darfur. First and foremost, these precedents reveal that a UN-authorized Chapter 7 intervention force in support of an African-led force can be effective in providing security and protection. They show that the Security Council can act with swiftness and decisiveness to grant a robust mandate and troop strength to protect civilians, and they highlight that such an intervention can act as a deterrent to violence and as a catalyst to make a peace process successful.
http://africaaction.org/newsroom/index.php?op=read&documentid=1603&type=15&issues=1024




Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
by Atlantic Review (bl -at- atlanticreview dot org) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 11:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
18 comments

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
2 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Recent Diaries
Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
3 comments

Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
18 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
2 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Answers to the Renewable Energy Consultation
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 7

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Mismatch with the Natural Gas Market
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3
22 comments

The Future of Economics
by ARGeezer - Feb 2
191 comments

Desert Island Discs - Helen's distortions
by Helen - Jan 31
48 comments

Gorila
by DoDo - Jan 29
14 comments

Rail News Blogging #7
by DoDo - Jan 29
15 comments

Obama's State Of The Union: LQD
by Crazy Horse - Jan 25
74 comments

Democracy Technology
by gmoke - Jan 24
1 comment

The Hydrogen dream
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 24
49 comments

ET Paris Meet-Up 2012 (2 UPDATE)
by afew - Jan 23
113 comments

More Diaries...
Occasional Series