The United Nations is becoming more and more ineffective in Darfur, as the Sudanese government continues to undermine the peacekeeping operation there. Khartoum is proving its unwillingness to achieve peace. Obviously, the rebels share some of the blame for the recent escalation in violence, but it is Khartoum's responsibility to achieve peace, by agreeing to the demands of the JEM (et al.).
Showing posts with label UNAMID. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UNAMID. Show all posts
Posted by
Kuku
on
12:20 PM
Labels:
African Union,
Ban Ki-Moon,
BBC,
Darfur,
Sudan,
UNAMID,
United Nations
Here is a video from the BBC of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon speaking at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa.
Posted by
Kuku
on
12:04 PM
Labels:
NCP,
Obama,
UNAMID,
United Nations,
United States
Anyone familiar with Sudan knows that the Bush administration has taken a soft (more diplomatic) approach towards the country. It has, in fact, played a critical role in drafting the peace agreement (CPA) and pushed the two parties to end the southern civil war. With regards to Darfur, the furthest the bygone administration had done was to label the conflict "genocide" and had done very little substantially, save on the humanitarian front.
The new administration, headed by Barack Obama, with his obvious link to Africa, has hinted it will take a different approach to Sudan and its ruling party, the National Congress (NCP).As of right now, we have very little to go by that will tell us what the new administration's policy towards Sudan will be, but we do know what public positions of the persons Obama has appointed to his national security team profess.
The Washington Post has a great article detailing the new administration and the effects it will have on Sudan.
Vice President - Joseph Biden:
Mr. Biden was one of the most vocal senators on taking action in Darfur. He has, on several different occasions during the campaign, called for the use of force, stating that he “would use American force now” if he could. I don’t know if this was a serious policy position or just another campaign promise that would go unfulfilled.
Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton:
Mrs. Clinton is in favor of placing a no-fly-zone, enforced by NATO, which will make it impossible for the Sudanese government to fly over the entire region and bomb civilians and rebels alike. She was also a big proponent of UNAMID.
US Ambassador to the UN - Susan Rice:
Ms. Rice is also in favour of a no-fly-zone. She has also advocated for NATO air strikes against the Sudanese military and the imposition of a naval blockade on Port Sudan, the country’s only water link to the world, and the main port that allows Sudan to export its oil. This would most certainly be a crippling move against the government, and perhaps the entire population, cutting off crucial trade. I am most certain that this option is off the table, as major world powers (China et al.) would not abide by it. She has also recently spoken about the "ongoing genocide" in Darfur, hinting that the Obama administration will keep the label given by the previous administration.
Secretary of Defence – Robert Gates:
Obama has kept Gates, Bush’s current secretary of state to stay on in his current capacity. Gates has not been at all vocal about Darfur, but has said that the US would not provide helicopters to the UNAMID troops in Sudan, citing the current US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
National Security Advisor – James Jones:
Jones is only in favor of NATO playing a support role and not having any sort of heavy military presence in the region.
Only time will tell how the Obama administration will deal with Darfur and other African issues as a whole. He, being of African descent, is expected to do a lot for the Continent. I hope he takes a pragmatic approach, dealing with this issue as a Sudanese issue, a part of the greater national problem, rather than an isolated conflict. If he does not do that, then he will be doing Darfur, Sudan and Africa a great disservice.
Posted by
Kuku
on
10:10 AM
Labels:
Darfur,
Sudan,
SUNA,
UNAMID,
United Nations
So now, according to this NYT article, the Sudanese Defense Minister admitted that the Government's armed forces were responsible for the attack on UNAMID forces, in direct contradiction of the UN Ambassador.
This doesn't bode well for the UN Rep, his credibility nor the situation on the ground. It isn't the first time this happens.
The Defense Minister, though not denying the claim that his forces were responsible for this attack, he " shares the blame" with the UNAMID forces, because they did not "announce their route." However, his ministry was cordial enough to provide an apology. According to SUNA "The Western Sudan Military Command has provided an apology to the representative of UNAMID in the region and ... the apology was accepted, in recognition of the dual mistake committed." I am glad everything was cleared up so quickly. (PLEASE!!!)
Posted by
Kuku
on
8:08 PM
Labels:
Darfur,
Sudan,
UNAMID,
United Nations
I was browsing the UN's website and was checking the Webcasts posted by the Security Council. They have what is call a "Media Stakeout" where representatives and UN officials are able to speak to members of the press and media.
Here is a short clip of Sudan's Representative being question in both Arabic and English journalists today about yesterday's attack on UNAMID forces in Darfur at the UN's HQ in New York:
The representative of Sudan is Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed. This man is a senior Sudanese diplomat but you would not be able to tell after watching the above video. He becomes irate very quickly when he is squeezed a bit by the media, which happens often if I may add. He is very undiplomatic and seems to be excusing and denying every single claim being placed, without putting any reasonable explanation. As you can see from the above video, he dismisses the UNSC's condemnation of the attack on UNAMID Forces in Darfur (Read about it here in the NY Times), but he (correctly) is quick to point out the Security Council's lack of a statement of condemnation on a similar attack on UN forces in Lebanon. Even though the double standard is clear, he fails to put a substantive point about the situation at hand.
It is very interesting to see this man speak. He is very well versed in both Arabic and English as shown in the video. The Arab media tends to give him softball questions while the non-Arab media, usually American, gives him a very hard time. After watching several other "media stakeouts" of other nations' representatives, it is very interesting to see how diplomacy is in action (or inaction) everyday at the United Nations. This world body is in dire need of reform. I hope to blog further about the UN at a later time.
PS.
If you want to see all the media stakeouts, which are usually updated daily, visit here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

