Darfur: I sure hope I was wrong

Readers know that I have been severely pessimistic about the prospects for an effective "hybrid" UN/African Union peacekeeping force being deployed to Darfur. Things in fact have moved much faster than I thought, largely because the Chinese finally have come on board (perhaps fearing repercussions for the 2008 Beijing Olympics if they persisted in their obstructionism at the Security Council). It now remains to be seen whether Sudan will in fact permit the force to deploy readily--and whether the force will in fact be effective. Note that Sudan has a veto over which countries can participate and that most troops, other than specialized units and headquarters staff (where Canada might be able to help), are to be African.

Nonetheless I'm sure our opposition parties will clamor for substantially increased Canadian Forces' involvement, in preference to the Afghan mission--you know, "traditional peacekeeping" (not under Charter Chapter VII, dolts), blah, blah, blah.

One can but hope things work out.

The U.N. Security Council authorized on Tuesday [July 31] up to 26,000 troops and police for Darfur and approved the use of force to protect civilians in Sudan's arid western region.

Expected to cost more than $2 billion in the first year, the combined "hybrid" U.N.-African Union operation aims to quell violence in Darfur, where more than 2.1 million people have been driven into camps and an estimated 200,000 have died over the past four years.

[...]

The resolution, number 1769, invokes Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, under which the United Nations can authorize force. The measure allows the use of force for self-defense, to ensure the free movement of humanitarian workers and to protect civilians under attack, but acknowledges Sudan's sovereignty.

The resolution, which has been watered down several times, no longer allows the new force to seize and dispose of illegal arms, saying it can only monitor such weapons.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, told reporters, "I am comfortable with the resolution." He said the use of Chapter 7 was limited and that negotiators "went to great lengths to satisfy our concerns."

The resolution authorizes up to 19,555 military personnel and 6,432 civilian police, which if deployed would be the world's largest peacekeeping force.

[...]

Infantry soldiers will be drawn mainly from African nations unless not enough Africans can be recruited. Personnel from elsewhere in the world are expected to be used for specialized engineering and in command headquarters [emphasis added].

[...]

Sudan, after months of hesitation, has agreed to the troop numbers, but U.N. officials expect it will take a year to get the entire force in place. Khartoum also has to agree to allow units from individual countries into Sudan [emphasis added].

The new headquarters should be running by Oct. 31, and U.N. members were urged to cover costs as soon as possible for the AU troops. The combined force is to be in charge of all operations by Dec. 31....

Now the game of interpreting the resolution begins:

Western nations maintain the main purpose of the new U.N.-African Union force for Darfur is to protect innocent civilians while Sudan insists the operation must not usurp Khartoum's ultimate responsibility.

The differing interpretations of a resolution approved unanimously by the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday could create difficulties for the planned force of up to 26,000 troops and police, the world's largest peacekeeping force.

[...]

The precise wording of the text could support both interpretations. The resolution says that force also could be used "to protect civilians without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Sudan."

Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, said he was grateful that Britain and France, negotiators of the measure, removed some of the harsher provisions, such as the threat of sanctions and the right to seize illegal arms.

"Regarding the protection of civilians, it is reflected very clearly that this should not be prejudicial to the responsibility of the government of Sudan itself," Mohamad told reporters. "No blank check is there."..

The Chinese factor:

...China, an ally of Sudan, signalled yesterday that it may be willing to provide peacekeeping troops. China has already pledged 275 soldiers for the UN’s “heavy support” package in Darfur and could provide engineers to help to establish the new force. The Chinese Ambassador to the UN said that Beijing would send more troops if it were approached.

China buys two thirds of Sudan’s oil and is facing calls for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics for not applying enough pressure on the Sudanese Government over Darfur.

While the US is still skeptical; so am I:

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad called on Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, to provide "maximum cooperation" in deploying the peacekeepers or face sanctions.

"If Sudan does not comply with this resolution, the United States will move for the swift adoption of unilateral and multilateral measures," Khalilzad told the council.

"Now Sudan faces a choice," he said. "Sudan can choose the path of cooperation or defiance."

Mark C.

Update: Ed Morrissey also has his doubts.

Upperdate: The Canadian blame game begins (guess which paper is leading it?):

Has Afghan commitment limited Canada's ability to participate?

The reality:

Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt and South Africa have signalled that they are ready to send large contigents to maintain the “predominantly African character” of the force – a key demand of Sudan.

Their numbers will be topped up with non-African contingents from Muslim nations such as Bangladesh, Jordan, Indonesia and Pakistan. Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria and Nepal are in line to provide the large numbers of police to patrol refugee camps.

[...]

France and Denmark were among the first yesterday to say that they would offer logistics troops [emphasis added]...

Britain will not send any ground troops, but may offer logistics and headquarters staff [emphasis added] to demonstrate its commitment to the operation...

Uppestdate: Observations on the military facts in Sudan from a recently returned CF member.

Posted by markc at August 1, 2007 03:27 PM