Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.N. Council Votes to Send Troops to Darfur; Sudan Objects

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.N. Council Votes to Send Troops to Darfur; Sudan Objects

    U.N. Council Votes to Send Troops to Darfur; Sudan Objects

    By DANIEL B. SCHNEIDER
    Published: September 1, 2006

    UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 31 — The Security Council passed a resolution Thursday authorizing the creation of a United Nations peacekeeping force for the ravaged Darfur region of Sudan, but the resolution calls for the consent of the Sudanese government before troops can be deployed.

    Sudanese officials immediately rejected the resolution.
    A senior adviser to President Omar al-Bashir told Al Jazeera television that the resolution was illegal and violated the peace accord signed by the government and one of the rebel factions.

    But State Department officials were quick to say the resolution did not explicitly require Sudan’s consent. “This resolution invites Sudanese consent,” Kristen Silverberg, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, said at a briefing in Washington after the vote. “Nothing requires Sudanese consent.”

    The proposed United Nations force is to include a military force of up to 17,300 members and a civilian police force of 3,300. It would replace or absorb the 7,000-member African Union force in Darfur, which has been hamstrung by financial and logistical problems and has failed to halt the slide into violence that President Bush has called genocide.

    Since early May, when the peace agreement was signed between the government and one of the main rebel factions fighting for greater autonomy and wealth for the region, Darfur has fallen deeper into chaos, with rebel groups splintering and forming new alliances. The government has proposed using its own troops instead of a United Nations force to quell the rebellion.

    The resolution also calls for immediate air, engineering and communications support for the African Union force, whose mandate will expire on Sept. 30.

    Given that deadline, the United States and Britain urged speed. “Every day we delay only adds to the suffering of the Sudanese people and extends the genocide,” said John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations.

    Even though there is already a United Nations force in the south of Sudan — consisting of about 10,000 troops, most of them from Asian nations — the government has portrayed a potential United Nations force in Darfur as a tool in a Western effort to get access to Sudan’s oil. The government has said it will resist the proposed force.

    As is the case with the current African Union force, the United Nations troops would support the fulfillment of the peace agreement. That includes investigating cease-fire violations, monitoring movement of armed groups and developing a program for the disarmament and demobilization of combatants.

    Acting under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, the troops will also be authorized to use force to protect civilians, relief workers and United Nations workers. The African Union has for the most part lacked such authority and has called for the United Nations to take charge of the peacekeeping mission.

    Hundreds of thousands of people have died and 2.5 million have been driven from their homes since the conflict began in 2003.

    Twelve of the Security Council’s 15 members voted for the resolution. Russia, China and Qatar, the Council’s sole Arab member, abstained. They suggested that without Sudan’s consent, voting now could only make negotiations more difficult. The Chinese ambassador, Wang Guangya, said the resolution could make the violence in Darfur worse.

    Mr. Bolton brushed aside the fears of Sudanese rejection. “The resolution simply said we invite their consent,’’ he said after the vote. “I think what we need is acquiescence. It would be nice to have cooperation. But the United Nations role should proceed, the planning should proceed, the operational work should be done and, as they say, silence gives consent.’’

    The Sudanese ambassador to the United Nations did not speak at Thursday’s meeting. The Security Council is to meet on Sept. 8 to discuss the situation with Sudanese officials and representatives from the Arab League, the African Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

    Lydia Polgreen contributed reporting from Kebkabiya, Sudan, for this article.
    More Articles in International »
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/wo...html?ref=world
    Enough of prattle the world has indulged in over this issue and many have died.

    This is an Islam vs Islam issue, but the tricky side is that it is a RACIST issue. Brown Arabs descent Sudanese vs BLACK Sudanese.

    And the OAU is as dead as a Dodo!

    There is no need to take anyone's consent and instead should just jump into the fray, establish authority and kick the errant ones in the pants hard.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA
Working...
X