The UN acts on Darfur?!?

--by Sebastian

According to this Guardian story, the UN may finally be acting on the Darfur genocide:

The UN vote will dispatch a hybrid force of 19,555 UN and African Union (AU) soldiers and more than 6,000 police from around the world. They are due to take over from a largely ineffectual 7,000-strong AU force in the western Sudan by the end of the year, and will have a much more muscular mandate. They are being deployed under chapter 7 of the UN charter which will give them the right to use force to protect civilians and assist the delivery of relief supplies.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, called the decision a "historic and unprecedented resolution" which will send "a clear and powerful signal" of the UN's commitment to "close this tragic chapter in Sudan's history". Britain's ambassador to the UN, Emyr Jones Parry, called it "an unprecedented undertaking in scale, complexity and importance".

Hours before the vote, Mr Brown went to the UN headquarters to endorse the resolution, describing Darfur as "the greatest humanitarian disaster the world faces today". Since a rebellion broke out in the province in 2003, the fighting has cost the lives of more than 200,000 people, most at the hands of Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, sponsored by Khartoum.

About two million people have been forced from the villages into relief camps in Darfur and over the border in Chad, where the conflict has shown signs of spreading. A total of 4 million people in Darfur depend on food aid to survive.

The security council voted while Mr Brown was flying back from his maiden US trip as prime minister, which his aides claim has been an outstanding success. At Camp David, the prime minister reaffirmed his support for the transatlantic alliance but stopped short of the warm personal endorsements of President Bush for which Tony Blair had been known. A Washington Post headline on the meeting described the British prime minister as "more bulldog than poodle".

Human rights activists welcomed last night's vote, but warned that a lot more political will would be needed to ensure the security council decision was implemented in the face of potential obstructionist tactics by Khartoum, which had referred to similar versions of the resolution as "ugly" and "awful".

The resolution had been stripped of any threat of sanctions against the Sudanese government if it blocked the force's deployment, though Mr Brown said his government would "redouble" efforts to impose an embargo if that happened.

The last paragraph worries me quite a bit, but I'll take practically any good news on this front. 

Comments

[Nell]

Testing for Sebastian.

[Hartmut]

But who will actually provide the non-African part of the troops? By now we should be used to "We wholeheartedly support that intervention but have no soldiers to spare".
And (as usual) it looks like too little too late (and this time there is not even US-bashing necessary, it's shared guilt).

[dmbeaster]

Intervention of this type by the UN requires at least the tacit agreement of Sudan. Sudan may make public noises about its displeasure, but it is basically permitting the UN troops in due to international political pressure.

The UN is not able to deal effectively with civil war atrocities since it has to have the consent of the host country to send in troops.

[ajay]

Hartmut: There are plenty of advanced armies not involved in Iraq - France, Germany, the Nordics, Italy, and Spain, to name but a few. They should be able to round up a few battlegroups between them.

[Hartmut]

Of course there are enough soldiers to do the job but that doesn't stop the governments from claiming the opposite (while accusing each other of shirking).

On this one occasion I would make excuses for Germany on the soldier side (but not the police) because only a small part of the army can actually be deployed abroad* and most of that is currently occupied in Afghanistan and in the Balkans (and the navy at the Horn of Africa).
So it would have to be either leaving Afghanistan for Darfour or getting the German constitution changed significantly (as the Japanese are currently considering with theirs).

*conscripts can't be used except for national defense and the far smaller professional section has also some rather strict constitutional limitations (to get even Afghanistan past the Supreme Court was quite a tightrope walk).

[zmulls]

I read the Associated Press article about this in the Philadelphia Inquirer today.

What struck me was that the article did not mention the United States. Not once. Britain and France were mentioned, quoted, etc., as being the driving forces. But it was as if the United States was barely interested or involved in the effort.

Which is probably true. And that just makes me sad and ashamed.

[cleek]

where would we get these US troops?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"But it was as if the United States was barely interested or involved in the effort.

Which is probably true. And that just makes me sad and ashamed."

Seems unlikely, as we've been behind the last 5 or 6 pushes. The main difference now is the lack of opposition from China.

[Joe Thomas]

"Seems unlikely, as we've been behind the last 5 or 6 pushes. The main difference now is the lack of opposition from China."

Though I could well be misremembering, my recollection (heard from someone with far, far more knowledge about the conflict than I) is that China has oil interests in western Sudan (yay, oil!) and was thus clearly benefiting from the conflict in some way. Anyone else remember something along those lines? The presentation I'm trying to remember this from was a solid hour on background & politics, both local and international, and I wasn't taking notes, but I think that was the bottom line on "why China is blocking UN action."

I think we (i.e. the U.S.) likely have been one of the driving forces, not to the exclusion of European countries by any means, but it's a fairly easy issue for politicians (as long as they're not committing US troops) and there's been a decent amount of political pressure on the issue. My view might be skewed from having just spent four years on a college campus (where the "liberal" students like to adopt causes as far away from home as possible).

[Jay Jerome]

zmuls: "What struck me was that the article did not mention the United States. Not once."

Maybe you should expand your reading choices.
From the NY Times

"As the resolution was approved Tuesday, the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, issued a stern warning to President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan to cooperate.

“If Sudan does not comply with this resolution, the United States will move for the swift adoption of unilateral and multilateral measures,” Mr. Khalilzad said in a statement.

and this from the L.A. Times:

The United States did not co-sponsor the resolution because it was weaker than the one the Bush administration had wanted, diplomats said. But U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said that it included Washington's three bottom-line demands, including invoking Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter to justify the use of force, giving command and control to the U.N., and allowing the use of force to protect civilians.

"I would not read a lot into this," Khalilzad said of the decision not to co-sponsor the resolution.

"The important thing is that we voted for it and we will support it."

[Randy Paul]

At the risk of going all post hoc ergo propter hoc on you, the ball got rolling with Mia Farrow, a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF pressing Steven Spielberg, who's artistic adviser to the bejing Olympics. Spielberg pressed China as did Olympic speed skater, Joey Cheek.

It's not just oil. China also sells arms to Sudan.

[novakant]

That's star-power - cool. Now maybe Angelina Jolie could adopt both a Sunni and a Shiite orphan and we'll have it covered all over the Iraqi Yellow Press.

[double-plus-ungood]

Though I could well be misremembering, my recollection (heard from someone with far, far more knowledge about the conflict than I) is that China has oil interests in western Sudan (yay, oil!) and was thus clearly benefiting from the conflict in some way.

How would this conflict be beneficial to Chinese oil interests? In any way?

[Jay Jerome]

"Now maybe Angelina Jolie could adopt both a Sunni and a Shiite orphan and we'll have it covered all over the Iraqi Yellow Press."

Yeah, but the kids would probably beat the hell out of each other in their cribs before the photographers got there...

[alphie]

But the Janjaweed are just a local tribe the Sudanese government armed so they could fight terrorists.

That's a good thing, right?

[spartikus]

How would this conflict be beneficial to Chinese oil interests? In any way?

A question worth exploring.

[dmbeaster]

Though I could well be misremembering, my recollection (heard from someone with far, far more knowledge about the conflict than I) is that China has oil interests in western Sudan (yay, oil!) and was thus clearly benefiting from the conflict in some way.

China has oil interests throughout the region (Darfur, Chad, CAR) and is suspected of underwriting violence in Sudan and neighboring Central African Republic as part of its oil strategy. Create instability and then offer to fix it for oil rights.

[dmbeaster]

In the case of China in Sudan, its provide arms to the Sudanese government for oil rights, which arms are needed by the government in Darfur. In the CAR, the suspicion is that the rebel groups, which are based in Sudan, are armed by the Sudanese with Chinese supplied arms.

[double-plus-ungood]

China has oil interests throughout the region (Darfur, Chad, CAR) and is suspected of underwriting violence in Sudan and neighboring Central African Republic as part of its oil strategy. Create instability and then offer to fix it for oil rights.

Suspected by whom? Is there any evidence of this?

[double-plus-ungood]

As China already has oil rights which it received the old fashioned way (for money), isn't creating instability and arming both sides of a conflict kind of a roundabout method of buying oil?

[Joe Thomas]

On China & Oil in the region:
I really don't remember the specifics, and there were a number of different international interests discussed, so I could be definitely getting the wrong country matched up to the wrong motivation. dmbeaster seems to have a better handle on the stuff than I do.

[OCSteve]

I think I’m going to have to go with Captain Ed on this one:

The problems in this agreement should be readily apparent to anyone who has paid attention to UN deployments in the past. They have suffered from an unwillingness to take action even when not restricted by these kinds of engagement limitations. Leaving the rebels and the militias armed and unmolested means that the UN forces will get dropped into a hot zone, where they have traditionally done more damage than good, as the remaining residents of Srebrenica can attest.

And let's not forget the track record of using African troops as peacekeepers under the UN banner. Almost every deployment has resulted in allegations of rape and molestation, with troops turning local women into prostitutes in exchange for protection and basic food and water. The UN has promised action to end this disgraceful performance for over three years. Will they keep the troops in line in Darfur? Or will this turn into another Congo, or for that matter, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, and a host of other perverted debacles?
…
This agreement is a Band-Aid for Western sensibilities. It allows us to think that we're doing something significant, providing cover for the Sudanese government to continue their policies of genocide. We've just become spectators at the gruesome event. Some may argue that this is a first step, but it looks a lot like a meaningless gesture.

And no, I don’t know exactly what should be done.

[Hartmut]

The German government has reacted exactly as predicted. Blessings but no boots.
And the analogy to the Balkans is spot-on I fear. There is a fair chance that it's going to be worse with the UN nominally helping but shying away from risking anything.

[double-plus-ungood]

I think I’m going to have to go with Captain Ed on this one:

Man, the UN gets nailed no matter what it does. Inaction on Darfur? Bad. Action on Darfur? Bad.

The UN is doing precisely what should be done in this instance -- deliver relief supplies and protecting civilians. There isn't a lot else that can be done.

[double-plus-ungood]

Captian Ed: Will they keep the troops in line in Darfur? Or will this turn into another Congo, or for that matter, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, and a host of other perverted debacles?

He left off Iraq.

[OCSteve]

DPU: Inaction on Darfur? Bad. Action on Darfur? Bad.

It seems to me to be more like: Inaction on Darfur? Bad. Doing something to make us (the west) feel a little better about the whole situation but in fact placing so many limitations on the force as to make them little more than witnesses? Possibly very bad.

“Insufficient troops, coupled with a restricted mandate.”

It doesn’t seem like we have learned much from prior disasters. This is a concern:

The final resolution narrowed the circumstances under which the troops can use force: to protect themselves, aid workers and civilians. It also pledged that the force would not usurp the responsibilities of the Sudanese government.

In addition, there was no mention of sanctions in the event Sudan did not comply, and the resolution said that the force could monitor illegal weapons present in Darfur, but not disarm rebels or pro-government militias, as originally drafted.

And this:
But several ambassadors emphasized that the peacekeepers must have a peace to keep and urged the government, rebel leaders and militias to uphold a cease-fire and work on a U.N.-backed peace agreement.

The chapter 7 mandate is the best thing IMO as it seems to be a pre-authorization to use force in appropriate situations. I’ll be interested to see if that is true in fact or if on scene commanders actually have to get clearance from higher up on a case by case basis.

So no teeth to compel Khartoum, no militias to be disarmed, “narrowed … circumstances under which the troops can use force”, and a likely bug-out if fighting resumes… So yeah, I think to myself: are we just once again herding civilians into “safe zones” that in reality turn out to be slaughter pens?

[double-plus-ungood]

So no teeth to compel Khartoum...

Compel it to do what?

...no militias to be disarmed...

Which ones? This is a crucial question, as there are a large number. If you disarm the rebels, they are sitting ducks. If you disarm the government, they are powerless against the insurgents. If you attempt disarm everyone, they all turn on the UN, at which point its mission becomes staying alive and fighting everyone.

[Jack Robles]

My guess is that the chninese governement does not benefit from the instability, but rather from the current power structure.
As I recal, there was a revolt in Nigeria back in the 60s or 70s. All the oil was in one region (south?), and all the ruling ethnicity was in a different region (north?). Sounds like Iraq right? As I recal, the source of the revolt was at least partially because: the oil regions had become an enviromental dissaster (think how unpleasant it is to be near a refinery in the USA even with enviromental restrictions,) the working conditions and pay in the oil regions were attrocious, and all the revenues were being directed to the region in which the ruling ethnicity lived. Of course, oil is cheaper if one does not need to worry about labor rights or the enviroment. This power structure is probably set up during colonialism, and then seen to be convenient even after. As I recal, the British came to the aid of the Nigerian rulers by posting a blockade of the rebel regions.
Might not the same thing be going on in the Sudan?
Jack

[Gary Farber]

"As I recal, there was a revolt in Nigeria back in the 60s or 70s. All the oil was in one region (south?), and all the ruling ethnicity was in a different region (north?)."

If you read the news, you'll learn that there's war going on in Nigeria right now over oil, and Americans taken prisoner, and the like. Admittedly, you have to be paying close attention.

[ajay]

China has oil interests in western Sudan (yay, oil!) and was thus clearly benefiting from the conflict in some way. Anyone else remember something along those lines?

I don't think it's benefitting from the conflict, per se, but it certainly wants to stay friends with the Sudanese government; and if that means helping Khartoum block peacekeeping missions, so be it.