Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Right to protect
Today, Africa Union (AU) leaders met in Addis Ababa to reaffirm that they will be pulling their troops out of the Darfur region this month after the Sudanese government refused to permit them to be replaced by UN peacekeeping forces. Sudan has rejected a UN resolution passed last week aimed at sending a 17 000 peacekeepers to the region to end violence, widely attributed to government support of the Janjaweed militia there, which has seen hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, and a huge number of women and other vulnerable peoples raped and brutally assaulted over the past several years. Khartoum has stated the AU will only be allowed to remain in Darfur if their mandate is extended beyond 30 September and not as part of a UN force, which it charges is challenging its right to national sovereignty.
UN Resolution 1706, which would have allowed UN forces to take over for the only 7 000 or so AU troops which have been trying to maintain peace in the vast western region of the country, was unanimously passed by the Security Council on August 31, with only three abstentions. Russia, China, and Qatar failed to vote on the resolution, citing concerns over the timing of its enforcement, which is being opposed by the Sudanese government. Instead, Sudan has offered to replace the AU troops with 10 000 members of its own army, a suggestion condemned by human rights groups monitoring the region.
Since the United Nations must have the support of the member nations to which it wishes to send peacekeeping troops, it remains unclear what further action it will pursue. It has been several years since reports began emerging of widespread human rights abuses against mainly 'black' African peoples in the region by the Arab-identifying Janjaweed militia, but action has been slow, when it has emerged at all, and numerous reports have cited increased violence since the government signed a peace agreement with one rebel group in the region in May.
Will the UN take advantage of recent movement to add the 'right to protect' to its mandate in cases of widespread humanitarian abuse? Canada convened the committee which recently suggested adding this responsibility to the duties of its member states, but it seems our own government lacks the moral leadership to take serious initative on enforcing this issue. Systematic violence against ethnic groups on a massive scale is not without precedent, and lessons from Rwanda and Cambodia should have taught the community of nations by now that immediate intervention is necessary to prevent an even greater humanitarian catastrophe.
What has happened to the right to protect? How can we show the people of Darfur there is some bite to our bark, some action coming behind all this rhetoric?
UN Resolution 1706, which would have allowed UN forces to take over for the only 7 000 or so AU troops which have been trying to maintain peace in the vast western region of the country, was unanimously passed by the Security Council on August 31, with only three abstentions. Russia, China, and Qatar failed to vote on the resolution, citing concerns over the timing of its enforcement, which is being opposed by the Sudanese government. Instead, Sudan has offered to replace the AU troops with 10 000 members of its own army, a suggestion condemned by human rights groups monitoring the region.
Since the United Nations must have the support of the member nations to which it wishes to send peacekeeping troops, it remains unclear what further action it will pursue. It has been several years since reports began emerging of widespread human rights abuses against mainly 'black' African peoples in the region by the Arab-identifying Janjaweed militia, but action has been slow, when it has emerged at all, and numerous reports have cited increased violence since the government signed a peace agreement with one rebel group in the region in May.
Will the UN take advantage of recent movement to add the 'right to protect' to its mandate in cases of widespread humanitarian abuse? Canada convened the committee which recently suggested adding this responsibility to the duties of its member states, but it seems our own government lacks the moral leadership to take serious initative on enforcing this issue. Systematic violence against ethnic groups on a massive scale is not without precedent, and lessons from Rwanda and Cambodia should have taught the community of nations by now that immediate intervention is necessary to prevent an even greater humanitarian catastrophe.
What has happened to the right to protect? How can we show the people of Darfur there is some bite to our bark, some action coming behind all this rhetoric?
posted by Christopher at 12:49 a.m.
0 Comments:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
aside
A blog about books, ideas, Canada (or lack thereof) and more. We've got more RPMs than a Latin American history DVD.
Previous Posts
Archive
- current
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- July 2009
- May 2012
Links
- Money Undressed
- Seth's Blog
- 中外对话|China Dialogue
- mental volumes with vasyL
- How to Save the World
- daveberta
- Ugandan Insomniac
- This American Life
- Life as a Vole
- Kate Beaton comics
