Darfur - Has the UN failed?

Fratton Fred

The UN are pulling their aid people out of Darfue due to increasing violence (Even though there is a ceasefire in place).

Innocent people are still being killed yet the Sudanese government is still refusing to allow a UN peacekeeping force into the country.

If innocent people are being killed by government backed militia, then surely this is 100% within the UN's remit, so what the hell are they waiting for?

Why is the UN still not taking action to protect these people?

lostexpectation

Fratton Fred wrote:

The UN are pulling their aid people out of Darfue due to increasing violence (Even though there is a ceasefire in place).

Innocent people are still being killed yet the Sudanese government is still refusing to allow a UN peacekeeping force into the country.

If innocent people are being killed by government backed militia, then surely this is 100% within the UN's remit, so what the hell are they waiting for?

Why is the UN still not taking action to protect these people?

why is it primarily the UN's fault, im quite sure there an amount of Sundanese people who to the top of the blame list.

the AU force is still there right

Fratton Fred

lostexpectation wrote:

why is it primarily the UN's fault, im quite sure there an amount of Sundanese people who to the top of the blame list.

the AU force is still there right

it's not the UN's fault, but I thought the idea of the UN was to protect people in these sort of situations.

The AU is still there, but is under strength and under equiped to do much about it. They have around 7000 men trying to protect an area the size of France.

Frederico

I wonder what happened to that African rapid reaction force.. or are they still being trained up or what?

Literally noone wants to help Darfur because theres nothing to gain from it.. I think we need pictures of gunmen hacking/killing civilians before there will be any action.

Sand

Short answer, yes the UN has failed, adding to a long, long list of failures.

The reason the UN isnt going into Darfur despite government backed massacres of civillians is because theyre government backed. The UN cannot ever violate the sovereignty of a country. The Sudanese government could execute kids live on TV every day and the UN would still have to ask their permission to enter the country to protect the victims. If youre asking the perpetrator for permission to protect the victim youre not going to get very far. The UN is not designed to protect human beings, its designed to protect state governments.

Nobody will support a violation of Darfurs sacred right to self determination and national sovereignty. Millions would march across the world if ever troops entered to protect people in Darfur from their government.

On the bright side, seeing the UN arent deploying in Darfur, they dodge the usual child sex/prostitution scandals that tend to dog their footsteps.

flogen

Sand wrote:

Short answer, yes the UN has failed, adding to a long, long list of failures.

The reason the UN isnt going into Darfur despite government backed massacres of civillians is because theyre government backed. The UN cannot ever violate the sovereignty of a country. The Sudanese government could execute kids live on TV every day and the UN would still have to ask their permission to enter the country to protect the victims. If youre asking the perpetrator for permission to protect the victim youre not going to get very far. The UN is not designed to protect human beings, its designed to protect state governments.

Nobody will support a violation of Darfurs sacred right to self determination and national sovereignty. Millions would march across the world if ever troops entered to protect people in Darfur from their government.

On the bright side, seeing the UN arent deploying in Darfur, they dodge the usual child sex/prostitution scandals that tend to dog their footsteps.

Hmm... I was sure that a recent UN resolution was passed that allowed a force to enter without a country's permission in extreme circumstances, but that France were vetoing any move because of the whole sovereignty issue anyway... perhaps it was just one of the suggested areas in need of reform, with France blocking the reform itself on the above basis...

Sand

Im certain there has been attempts to strenthen human rights in relation to state sovereignty, but when you consider the rogues gallery that make up the human rights bodies/general assembly/security council...its like TDs voting to reduce the number of seats in the Dail. The majority of 3rd world states have an interest in ensuring the UN cannot take action against them. Reformers tend to have short careers.

lostexpectation

so anyone real concerned about darfur and un got any info on negotiations or movements of people within the country to disapate the area cleansing

Frederico

Aaahh does anyone really care about Darfur.. sorry to be so cynical but its just an aruging chip for the Left about how we only attack countries with oil, etc and on the Right for how awful the UN is...

Fratton Fred

flogen wrote:

Hmm... I was sure that a recent UN resolution was passed that allowed a force to enter without a country's permission in extreme circumstances, but that France were vetoing any move because of the whole sovereignty issue anyway... perhaps it was just one of the suggested areas in need of reform, with France blocking the reform itself on the above basis...

don;t get me started on the French. I have nothing against the french personally, but their Government is totally spineless.

They Veto things like this because they are members of the security council and it would mean them actually putting their troops in a potentially dangerous situation.

How many did they send to Lebanon in the end, did the total actually make it to three figures?

Sand

Aaahh does anyone really care about Darfur.. sorry to be so cynical but its just an aruging chip for the Left about how we only attack countries with oil, etc and on the Right for how awful the UN is...

Sudan has oil so the theory that only countries with oil are attacked breaks down somewhat - and the likes of Kosovo and the Balkans in general didnt have oil. The UN is awful, but its simply a mechanism - if its membership gave a damn, theyd find a way even if it meant going around the UN like they did in Kosovo [which was carried out without UN authority, because NATO knew they would not get it].

The problem is that intervention as a concept has consistently been undermined and attacked, sometimes by cynics of "nation building", but mostly by the idealistic defenders of the oppressed who paint everything in terms of oil and neo-imperialism - even when there is no oil.

There have been brief stabs at forging interventionist policy since the early 90s [Somalia, the Balkans and so on] but essentially it breaks on two points - intervention is risky [soldiers can be killed, mistakes can be made, success is not guaranteed], expensive, often long term, and blame can be firmly assigned to the policy maker.

In examples of inaction, like Rwanda, the blame can happily be passed around to the point where no one is at fault - hence its far more attractive to policy makers. Especially when moral relativists are busy assuring us that people who arent white like being oppressed.

Essentially the people in Darfur are ****ed and should simply die as quickly as they can to spare our blushes, because the "international community" doesnt believe in universal human rights as much as it might claim. Certainly, its political leaders are aware that Darfur is not and will not be an election issue unless they get into it. No one will be blamed for Darfur as it stands, except for the useful whipping boy of the UN. Why would any politician risk their careers for something as meaningless and devalued as human rights?

mike65

For Darfur you could just as easily say Zimbabwe which the Sunday Times has a good piece about. Its going to hell and no-one will intervene.

Mike.

Lou.m

The sudaneese goevernment have an agenda here. And the ineternational community are also to blame. And the UN at has to be said are not up to the job of dealing with a conflict as vicious as this. They are most affective in keeping the peace only when there is a peace to keep they do not have a good record for dealing with this level of violence. What is really needed and we all know it is intervention by the international community but the sudanese government will not allow it because it does not suit them and they have a situation where they are allowed to still have the ultimate say in what foreign forces do in the area which they most certainly where not if forces from other countries were to get involved. And these countries seem to be obsessed with the middle east maybe there is some little problem they caused there recenlty oh yes the destruction of a ll stability in the region. HHHMMMMM maybe it is best if the international community (ie. britain and america) do not get involved they seem to have a habit of causing major **** ups.

Lou.m

I know my above post maybe over simplifying a very complicated situation but it is of course as everyone knows another Rwanda (sorry to state the obvious). I heard reports from a reporter who interviewed people who had escaped buring villages, rape and murder and walked miles to "safety" and i got emotional.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Sand

Sand wrote:

Sudan has oil so the theory that only countries with oil are attacked breaks down somewhat - and the likes of Kosovo and the Balkans in general didnt have oil. The UN is awful, but its simply a mechanism - if its membership gave a damn, theyd find a way even if it meant going around the UN like they did in Kosovo [which was carried out without UN authority, because NATO knew they would not get it].

The problem is that intervention as a concept has consistently been undermined and attacked, sometimes by cynics of "nation building", but mostly by the idealistic defenders of the oppressed who paint everything in terms of oil and neo-imperialism - even when there is no oil.

There have been brief stabs at forging interventionist policy since the early 90s [Somalia, the Balkans and so on] but essentially it breaks on two points - intervention is risky [soldiers can be killed, mistakes can be made, success is not guaranteed], expensive, often long term, and blame can be firmly assigned to the policy maker.

In examples of inaction, like Rwanda, the blame can happily be passed around to the point where no one is at fault - hence its far more attractive to policy makers. Especially when moral relativists are busy assuring us that people who arent white like being oppressed.

Essentially the people in Darfur are ****ed and should simply die as quickly as they can to spare our blushes, because the "international community" doesnt believe in universal human rights as much as it might claim. Certainly, its political leaders are aware that Darfur is not and will not be an election issue unless they get into it. No one will be blamed for Darfur as it stands, except for the useful whipping boy of the UN. Why would any politician risk their careers for something as meaningless and devalued as human rights?

Excellent post. Spon on.