Reported in The New York Times today, the United Nations has attempted to restore a peacekeeping force in Darfur, but Sudan has thwarted their attempt. The U.N. force, which would consist of 26,000 members had the intention of replacing the 7,000 members of the African Union force. The African Union peacekeeping force has had very little success in stopping the genocide. Sudan is resisting U.N forces because they do not want "specialized troops from non-African militaries blocking support staff and material from the area through bureaucratic maneuvers, and withholding needed land and permissions for the assignment of helicopters." In addition, Sudan threatens to block the U.N. force's communications and restrict their planes from flying at night if/when they intervene. As the article states, this leaves the U.N. with a serious conundrum. A U.N official, Jean-Marie Geuhenno asked, "do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself, and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations, and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?"
here is the link to the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/world/africa/28darfur.html?ref=world
Some questions:
-Since history shows that Sudan is incapable of instituting a successful peacekeeping force, what does the U.N. do? What is your response to Geuhenno's question?
-The U.N is typically known to be slow to respond to international crises. What is the international community's role even though Sudan refuses any international help?
-Relating back to the recently discussed theme of justice and judgement, who's fault will it be if the genocide continues? Sudan's for not supporting an international peacekeeping force or the U.N.'s for not intervening anyway? Who should be held responsible for something like this?
-I know this is speculation but after learning who was sent to court in Nuremburg in 1945 and discussing the reasons why, if there is a court case after this genocide ends, who do you think the defendants will be?
1 comment:
In the H Block Genocide class we mentioned a hierarchy of responsibility when figuring out who to bring to court in a post-genocidal time of justice and judgment. With this in mind I do not believe that UN forces should be held responsible for committing genocide. This falls directly on a despicable Sudanese government. Although the UN should be held morally responsible for not acting with sufficient force in a timely manner, I do not think there should be any legal ramifications for their lack of action. The architects of the genocide in Darfur should be held accountable.
Even though the Sudan government is making it increasing harder to provide aid to people in Darfur, there is still a major lack of commitment from an international community, especially the United States. Stopping a genocide takes a conscious commitment over a period of time to spend recourses and energy to stop mass killings. I believe that if the UN and the US truly wanted to stop the genocide they should put more money and devote all their power (which they have bundles of) to pressure the government and individual perpetrators that the ramifications for committing genocide are grave.
To stop a genocide organizations and governments need to take the peace process seriously and the UN and US had done this only wholeheartedly up to this point in time. There have been good steps, but they have not committed completely.
Post a Comment