Darfur Intervention On Shaky Ground
The UN announced its deal to intervene in the Darfur a week ago, with the Security Council authorizing an anemic force of 26,000 troops with equally anemic rules of engagement. Now it looks like the force may get weaker yet or fail to coalesce at all. The UN cannot find 26,000 African troops, and the Sudanese government refuses to allow any other nations to contribute to the force:
Sudan will have to accept non-African troops in a U.N.-authorized peacekeeping force for Darfur or face the prospect of new United Nations sanctions, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.Although efforts will be made to ensure that Africa contributes a large percentage of the 26,000-strong mission, the continent does not have enough trained soldiers to fully staff the force and Sudan will be penalized unless it drops objections to non-African participation, said Andrew Natsios, the U.S. special envoy for Sudan. ...
The Sudanese government is adamantly opposed to non-Africans playing any major role in the hybrid U.N.-African Union operation that was authorized by the U.N. Security Council on July 31 and will be made up of 20,000 peacekeepers and 6,000 civilian police.
Disagreements over the composition of the mission were a major reason the authorization was delayed for months despite mounting pressure on Khartoum to accept it to help end nearly four years of internal conflict in which more than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced.
As I noted last week, UN troops from African nations have a history of sexually exploiting the women and children under their protection. One could understand if Sudan refused to admit those troops -- but why object to non-African troops? They do not want to incur the wrath of their janjaweed militias, which is why the UN has scrambled to find troops from Muslim nations instead.
That, however, will create more problems. The non-Muslims in Darfur have suffered at the hands of radical Islamists and will likely not see non-African Muslim troops as their saviors. In fact, they're more likely to think that the troops might have more sympathy with their tormentors than their wards.
It looks like this mission is doomed. If Sudan is so insistent on an all-African corps, and there aren't enough troops even for the small force authorized by the UN, then it would take an invasion to place UN troops in Darfur. And if the UN can't scrape up 26,000 troops for a peacekeeping mission, how likely will it be that they will find enough for an invasion?
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 7, 2007 6:39 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (15)
Posted by NahnCee | August 7, 2007 7:50 PM
One could understand if Sudan refused to admit those troops -- but why object to non-African troops? They do not want to incur the wrath of their janjaweed militias,
Translation: janjaweed militias feel confident they can kill off African UN soldiers, but are scared to death (literally) about having to go up against Western soldiers (even the French) and macho around.
Posted by Bennett | August 7, 2007 8:14 PM
Amusing, really, that Sudan gets to decide what the peacekeeping force will look like. Or it would be amusing if it's weren't so sad and so pointless, all these months even years of negotiatons and discussions and finally there is an agreement...except it can't be fulfilled because Sudan's demand for an all-Africa force can't be met, which surely someone knew this would be the case before they made the announcement. Really, what more needs to be said about the UN and it's peacekeeping missions?
And I wouldn't be so hard on the French military. As I understand it, they are actually quite good (when they're allowed into action).
Posted by Eric | August 7, 2007 8:15 PM
That's the way I read it as well. They figure nobody will care if they mow down a bunch of African troops.
Posted by docjim505 | August 7, 2007 8:38 PM
Hmmm... Somebody better tell the democrats. Or maybe not: they may demand that we invade Darfur, and to hell with UN approval.
Posted by Hansmeister | August 7, 2007 8:55 PM
"The non-Muslims in Darfur have suffered at the hands of radical Islamists and will likely not see non-African Muslim troops as their saviors."
There are no non-muslims in Darfur. Unlike Southern Sudan both sides are muslim. The difference is racial, between muslim arabs and muslim blacks.
Posted by Captain Ed | August 7, 2007 9:27 PM
Only 70% of Sudan's population is Muslim. 5% is Christian, and 25% is animist. This is primarily, but not exclusively, a religious conflict.
Link: CIA Factbook
Posted by kathie | August 7, 2007 9:33 PM
Why only African troops? Because they know that it would be impossible to get 26,000 troops. The Dems want the US to have fly overs to protect the Darfurians. Sometimes I think they just talk to hear themselves talk. Like Sudan would grant fly overs, or we would do it anyway which is an act of war. The Dems need to improve their thought process, it is pathetic.
Posted by Steve Skubinna | August 7, 2007 10:06 PM
"The Sudanese government is adamantly opposed to non-Africans playing any major role..."
I am astonished that we (the international community) is not opposed to the Sudanese government playing any major role in Sudan. Neither the UN, the EU, the African union, nor NATO have the will to intervene in any meaningful manner to stop the slaughter. They never have, and they never will - all they are capable of doing is enriching themselves from human suffering and waiting for the US to step inso they can excoriate us.
Posted by Aaron | August 7, 2007 10:09 PM
Of course, on the off chance the UN does decide to invade, will Sudan's objections about the composition of the force really matter?
A moot point, I know, since Turtle Bay will be doing nothing of the sort.
Posted by Nicholas | August 7, 2007 10:48 PM
Darfurians are suffering from "death by committee" (literally!)
I demand more unilateral action. Where are the unilateralists (read: Westerners) when you really need them?
Posted by Adjoran | August 7, 2007 11:54 PM
Does anyone seriously believe anything is going to be done about the bloodletting in Dafur?
Honestly, people, how long has it been going on in full view and knowledge of the world? And what has been done so far?
Ah, the effectiveness of the UN and "multilateralism" generally . . .
However, it is not that the janjaweed would run over African troops, it is that they know with 100% certainty those troops would stand aside before putting themselves in harm's way, period.
Posted by Ellasion | August 8, 2007 12:55 AM
"Only 70% of Sudan's population is Muslim. 5% is Christian, and 25% is animist. This is primarily, but not exclusively, a religious conflict."
From the CIA Factbook link -
Religions:
Sunni Muslim 70% (in north), Christian 5% (mostly in south and Khartoum), indigenous beliefs 25%
AND right below that:
note: program of "Arabization" in process
The religious conflict was the 20+ years of civil war between the north and the south. That and the north wanted to control oil fields in the south. Darfur is mainly Muslim and as I understand it, Hansmeister is right. This is about who is the more authentic Muslim - Arab or Black.
Here's a link (http://www.d-a.org.uk/pages/dmg1.htm) to a 2002 news story about escalating violence in Darfur. Read the names at the bottom who have been murdered; they are very Muslim-sounding.
Posted by patrick neid | August 8, 2007 6:52 AM
as predicted, we are getting very close to the darfur crisis ending. Why? because everyone is almost dead. it took a little longer than i thought.
it's going to be a great photo op for hillary when she stands on those barren plains and apologizes to the last three survivors recounting, as bill did before her in rwanda, why, had she been president earlier this would not have happened.
bush, alone in texas, gets mocked as usual for having called it genocide by the hacks at the UN who still refuse to agree on a definition of what exactly is taking place in the sudan. meanwhile sudanese leaders go on shopping sprees in new york while being feted by the UN. ain't life great!
hey look on the bright side. the 100's of thousand dead produced a "save darfur" bumper sticker to go next to the fading "free tibet" on all those "progressive" autos happily driving to beach.
Posted by NahnCee | August 8, 2007 12:09 PM
Family in a car on a long trip. Mom and Dad sitting in the front seat, brood of kids in the back seat squabbling, pinching, hitting, kicking the back of the seat..
Mom: Stop it.
Dad: Stop it now and behave yourselves.
Mom: Did you hear me? I said to sit still and behave yourselves.
Dad: Listen to your mother and sit still. Sis, don't pinch your little brother. Big brother, don't push your sister. All of you - just stop it.
Final words by Dad: DON'T MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR AND COME BACK THERE. I'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO CRY FOR, THEN!!!
* * *
Insert "American Military" for Dad in all the little juvenile "hot spots" of the world. Don't make us send our soldiers in there. You can NOT fight them, you know you're not big enough, and they'll give you something to really cry about then!
Which is probably why we so frequently see naive little bloggers from around the world begging America to send troops in to free their backwards countries from whatever thug has it in a step-over toehold. Everyone, including janjaweed "militias" knows the military combination of Britain, Australia and America are unparalleled in the history of humanity when it comes to making the big kids at least appear to behave themselves for a little while
Posted by gary | August 14, 2007 11:38 AM
Darfur is a case where locating the root cause is required. As I see it, the problem is a dysfunctional United Nations. As long as dictators are allowed to set the agenda, we are fools to expect issues involving human rights to be resolved. We need to overhaul the UN such that it's founded on the principle of democracy. Something like this...
http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
Any solutions involving only Darfur fail to appreciate the larger problem.
gary