Posted on 10/28/2005 6:18:15 PM PDT by csvset
|
The UN Security Council (SC) at one of its meetings just over two weeks ago had on its agenda the latest briefing on the deteriorating situation in Darfur. But the SC did not get the briefing because John Bolton, the US Permanent Representative (Ambassa-dor) to the UN objected to it. Bolton said that he objected because the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them. He considered that council should be talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation in Darfur (SN October 11). Of all the neo-conservatives (neo-cons) who dominate the Bush administration, Bolton perhaps attracts the most hostility and distrust. Even the US Senate despite its Republican majority was uneasy about approving his appointment as US Ambassador to the UN, so much so that President Bush had to invoke a special constitutional provision which enabled him to make certain appointments (for a limited period) while the Congress is in recess. But in acting to stop the SC hearing and focus attention instead on the need for action, Bolton was surely acting on the side of the angels; international opinion on the whole will strongly support the call for action.
Not only has the SC heard numerous first hand reports on the atrocities in Darfur, including one from the Secretary General Kofi Annan himself, it had indeed had a briefing a few days before, from Hedi Annabi the UN Assistant Secretary General for peace keeping operations. More to the point, the UN Summit which met in September had as one of its major achievements asserted the clear and unambiguous acceptance by all governments of the collective international responsibility to protect peoples from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The summit had declared the willingness of the international community to take decisive collective action for this purpose, through the Security Council, when peaceful means prove inadequate and the State authorities are failing to do so either through incapacity or unwillingness. More than any other situation in the world today Darfur cries out to attract the action referred to above.
To remind of the background to Darfur. Sudan is Africa's largest country and among the poorest. The population of 35 million is sixty to seventy per cent "African" but the government, at present a military regime, has always been held by an Arabic - speaking, educated and Muslim minority. Independent since the British left nearly fifty years ago, Sudan has been embroiled in a civil war for at least 35 years. Since the discovery of oil reserves in the South, the government has waged war against the Southern "African" pastoralists to get them and their cattle off the land which is known to contain sub-surface oil. In the ensuing civil war, the south has been led by the late John Garang's Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement. The settlement of this civil war which was negotiated by a troika (USA, the UK and Norway) has held despite the recent death of Garang in a helicopter crash. Although there is no oil in the Western Darfur region that too is at war over resources in which Africans are being driven from their lands by the Sudan government's recruited and armed militias known as the Janjawead who have looted, raped, massacred and burnt entire villages. More than two hundred thousand persons have been killed and one and a half million driven from their homes and now living in refugee camps. The facts are not in dispute. All this has been happening 11 years after the Rwandan genocide. Although the international community pledged that there would not be another Rwanda, the response to the Darfur situation has to date been wholly inadequate. The situation clearly requires a massive military presence on the ground. Only the African Union has been willing to undertake this but its small force, less than 3000 in a vast region, inadequately equipped and trained and without logistical support is unequal to the task. And it is not clear that the logistical support promised by NATO has been forthcoming. In addition to several individual fact finding missions, there have been several resolutions, at least three for this year. Also, 4-l/2 billion dollars has been pledged for peace keeping and reconstruction.
A UN Commission of Inquiry established last year found that serious violations of international law had been committed not only by the Janjawead but also by Sudanese government personnel. It was this commission which recommended that the matter should be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) which it described as "the single last mechanism to ensure justice, for the crimes in Darfur." Somewhat surprisingly, in view of its well known non-recognition of and hostility to the ICC, the US did not exercise its veto but allowed the SC to so decide with the US only insisting on a clause in the SC decision granting immunity to nationals of non-party states. But Sudan is not a signatory to the court and has already stated that it will not cooperate. In the circumstances, it is not clear how effective the court could be in bringing the criminal elements to justice. The experience of the tribunal investigating Yugoslavian atrocities has shown the limits of judicial inquiry and action. The two most wanted Yugoslav suspects, Karadzic and Mladic, are still at large. The ICC will require SC support in applying pressure including sanctions and in giving peace keepers and the AU troops powers of arrest. It is doubtful whether such SC support would be forthcoming as there are vital interests involved among key SC members who may therefore not wish to take ultimate action against Sudan. Sudan has been a major purchaser of Russian arms and military hardware including a large number of helicopters. Russia is unlikely to support any action which will endanger this important market. China's National Petroleum Company (CNPC) is by far the largest entity exploiting Sudan's oil reserves. It is reported that the CNPC has brought into Sudan ten thousand Chinese labourers to build the infrastructure. To complete the oil picture the Western companies which had begun exploration in Sudan namely the US owned Chevron and the Canadian Talisman have long since withdrawn as a result of pressure from human rights groups. Their places have been taken over by Indian and Malaysian companies. Indeed the developing world is sharply divided on the Darfur situation with the African Union intervening on behalf of the majority African population of the Sudan, while the powerful Arab league, supports the Sudanese government. Russia, China and Algeria, a member of the Arab League, had supported Bolton's action but their motivations may be quite different. With such vital interests likely to determine SC actions is it possible for the SC to act effectively? There is now as already mentioned the decision of the UN Summit on Responsibility to Act ready to be explored and tested in action. Much will depend on US pressure and in particular Bolton's diplomacy. Among the major powers the US has almost alone consistently condemned the Darfur situation as genocide. The US position has responded to a powerful fundamentalist Christian lobby in the US which strongly supports the Bush administration and which has steadily denounced the religious persecution of Christians in Southern Sudan. President Bush on taking office therefore acted promptly by appointing a former Senator and Clergyman, the Rev John Danforth, as special envoy to Sudan. Danforth was later appointed as Permanent Representative to the UN, a position from which he subsequently resigned leaving the post vacant until Bolton's recent appointment. At a time when President Bush's popularity is falling at the polls and Republican party support apparently crumbling at the edges, Bolton as the ultimate neo-con might perceive high domestic political mileage taking a strong initiative on Darfur. Who could have foreseen that a time would come when one must call for at least two cheers for John Bolton.
|
|
The UN Gang:
A Memoir of Incompetence,
Corruption, Espionage,
Anti-Semitism and
Islamic Extremism
at the UN Secretariat
by Pedro A. Sanjuan
Lookin' for Bolton to get those dirty old UN rapist and child predator rapist. What an absolute disgrace. The UN goes into a country and starts raping those peoples children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
