Darfur, Chad and immobility....
A good friend of mine recently launched a conversation decrying the horrific conditions which exist today in Darfur in western Sudan. What is as bad as the slaughter of villagers, rapes, and displacements is that this has been going on in full view of the world for at least three years and no real progress made in stopping it. I agreed with him--it's a situation that has disturbed me for sometime as well. He went on then to state that he thought it was absolutely terrible that the United Nations hadn't stepped in to take action. This, he said, was the kind of thing that a UN should act on otherwise what was the point of having a UN? In the subsequent weeks, I've found myself mulling that over. And feeling an increasing sense of frustration about what, if anything can be done. The situation in Darfur doesn't exist in a vacuum. The government in Chad allegedly interferes in Sudanese affairs by supporting the rebels in Darfur. The government in Khartoum, despite denials, is widely believed to be provding air cover and weapons to the Arab militias who are most noted for their slaughter and rapine. And the regional leadership are cynical or indifferent enough that they are willing to let the Sudanese government host their recent meetings. The OAU, despite little military capacity, puts a tiny force in place in Darfur that is not able to keep the peace.
So what about the UN? I note that UN Agency leaders have been negotiating and scrambling to get into Darfur and have been speaking vociferously about the obstacles put in their way. But when all is said and done, the UN is pretty much the international organization we have wanted it to be. For starters, the organization was created with an absolute veto power over any action by any one of the permanent members--the winners of WWII. With the prospect that actual democratic parliamentarianism always risks being jettisoned, the attitude of the General Assembly participants has become (to my inexperienced eye)more about posturing and behind the scenes negotiation than about action. The UN has bold language in its charter but little in the way of ability to act-- particularly when a military solution is on the table and certainly when the 'great powers' don't concur on using such a solution.
I think my friend might argue that, if I'm right, we'd be better off without a UN and that enforcing policies in our national interest would get better results. I think that's also dubious. If the UN is a drag on forthright action for good, it is also a brake on impetuous actions for evil. It doesn't stop it, but it does make it harder for a 'rogue state' to go out and take on its neighbors.
The blank spot in the equation is stopping what happens within the borders of a 'sovereign' state. Like Sudan. Like Chad. Like Eritrea. Like Somalia. Like Myanmar... The sad list goes on. I don't know the answer.
So what about the UN? I note that UN Agency leaders have been negotiating and scrambling to get into Darfur and have been speaking vociferously about the obstacles put in their way. But when all is said and done, the UN is pretty much the international organization we have wanted it to be. For starters, the organization was created with an absolute veto power over any action by any one of the permanent members--the winners of WWII. With the prospect that actual democratic parliamentarianism always risks being jettisoned, the attitude of the General Assembly participants has become (to my inexperienced eye)more about posturing and behind the scenes negotiation than about action. The UN has bold language in its charter but little in the way of ability to act-- particularly when a military solution is on the table and certainly when the 'great powers' don't concur on using such a solution.
I think my friend might argue that, if I'm right, we'd be better off without a UN and that enforcing policies in our national interest would get better results. I think that's also dubious. If the UN is a drag on forthright action for good, it is also a brake on impetuous actions for evil. It doesn't stop it, but it does make it harder for a 'rogue state' to go out and take on its neighbors.
The blank spot in the equation is stopping what happens within the borders of a 'sovereign' state. Like Sudan. Like Chad. Like Eritrea. Like Somalia. Like Myanmar... The sad list goes on. I don't know the answer.
Comments