Wednesday, May 14

A war zone? Darfur?

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on the UN's peacekeeping force in Darfur, following the recent rebel attack on Khartoum:
not a peacekeeping force designed to deploy or function in a war zone.
Hmm. Maybe you should have mentioned this before sending the force into a conflict without a peace agreement. Granted, Darfur hasn't lately been the full-scale war zone it was in 2003, but it's hardly a peaceful zone, either. The International Crisis Group's Francois Grignon and Daniela Kroslak highlight this problem in a recent Current History article on overreaching peacekeeping missions, focusing on Darfur and DRC:
When asked last year if the 26,000-person force approved for Unamid by the UN Security Council were sufficient, Salim Ahmed Salim, the AU’s Special Envoy for Darfur, rightly responded that what matters is “not how large a force it is but what they have come to defend,” since “without an agreement on peace, even a force of 50,000 can’t change the situation here radically.”

No comments: