UN To send troops to Darfur

[johnfás]

The United Nations Security Council has this evening agreed a resolution to send 26,000 military and police personnel to Darfur. An estimated 200,000 people have died over the past four years and 2.1 million have been displaced mostly into refugee camps as a result of the conflict mainly between the Janjaweed Militia supported by the Sudanese Military and the Sudan Liberation Movement.

This marks a significant move in what is widely considered to be verging on a second Rwanda. Previously it had been almost impossible to pass a resolution due to China's constant veto of resolutions. This is due to their (and indeed Russia's) suspect links via sales of arms and ammunitions to the Sudanese Government. China has until this point appeared to be having an increasingly close relationship with the Sudanese Government owing mainly to Sudan's significant oil reserves where China's state oil company CNPC controls roughly 60% of the oil production.

The resolution invokes chapter 7 of the UN Charter under which the United Nations can authorise force. The measure allows the use of force to be used for self defence, to ensure the free movement of humanitarian workers and to protect civilians under attack. However, like Rwanda previously the resolution, which has been watered down several times, no longer allows the new force to seize and dispose of illegal arms. Now they can only monitor such weapons.

Gordon Brown appears to be particularly interested in coming to some solution to the huge issues faced in the region. Britain and France were the main sponsors of the resolution though the vast bulk of the force will be drawn from African states unless they cannot meet the numbers. International forces will be used for specialized engineering and in command headquarters. The United States has restricted its role to troop transportation and finance.

The UN are also attempting to organize a peace conference among a myriad of rebel groups and the government.


Various places to read about the latest developments:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6925187.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0 ... 62,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... for_darfur
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaki ... king74.htm

And the conflict more generally:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tVQDgKpQBRo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tVQDgKpQBRo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7zViGbEtRSg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7zViGbEtRSg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Rich OC]

Way too little and way too late. Where will the troops come from Blackwater perhaps?

[Defeated Romanticist]

Will they be a some under-resourced ineffectual African Union boys or proper troops.
26000 seems like a fraction of what is needed.

[A guy called Dave]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_ ... cient_lake

hopefully things will get better but the response to Darfur was shameful.

[johnfás]

I would imagine fairly ineffectual but alot better than previously as they will have the backup of Western Powers. It is an absolutely tiny fraction of what is needed but hopefully it may be a start. I don't care if people think Western Troops going into these regions is imperialist, in such disasterous humanitarian cases it is absolutely necessary and the sooner the better.

[Eddie Collins]

China has the largest army in the world, huge reserves of foreign currency and a massive trade surplus.

Maybe China should send troops and money instead of playing it's ruthlessly selfish and tight fisted game of pretending to be a poor third world country when aid is required to be given

[Rocky]

Will they be a some under-resourced ineffectual African Union boys or proper troops.
26000 seems like a fraction of what is needed.

26,000 thousands troops is a fair few troops and it will be the largest UN force today, so I wouldn't be that discouraged by the number. Of course it would be better if there were more troops but 26,000 troops isn't bad. Hopefully the UN won't have a problem getting states to provide troops and hopefully the troops will be deployed soon. This is a positive development and we could be beginning to come to the end of this conflict, which has gone on far too long. The sad thing is this should have happened four years ago and it’s a joke that it didn’t.

[irishpeoplearewhingers]

China has the largest army in the world, huge reserves of foreign currency and a massive trade surplus.

Maybe China should send troops and money instead of playing it's ruthlessly selfish and tight fisted game of pretending to be a poor third world country when aid is required to be given

Especially since they are propping up the ************************************s to begin with.

[lostexpectation]

I presume sudan is giving (reluctant) permission to these troops, none of the news station reported what sudan thought, or the details of the conditions, this was always the problem you had to get permission from sudan to bring in the troops other wise its called invasion and occupation and that never turns out well as we know.

[johnfás]

I presume sudan is giving (reluctant) permission to these troops, none of the news station reported what sudan thought, or the details of the conditions, this was always the problem you had to get permission from sudan to bring in the troops other wise its called invasion and occupation and that never turns out well as we know.

In international law you don't have to get permission provided there is a UN mandate and it invokes part of the UN Charter. Which this resolution did.