Why call for a MULTINATIONAL intervention? What about having African countries take the lead?
20- 11- 2006 A monitoring presence called the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is in Darfur right now. Originally, the international community placed its hope in AMIS, expecting it to protect civilians. But it is clear now that it does not have the resources or the troop numbers to patrol a region the size of Texas. And it does not have the proper mandate: legally, AMIS is forbidden from proactively engaging the genocidaires, since it is limited to guarding international monitors in the region. The AU itself has said that it doesn't have the resources for a robust peacekeeping mission. A solution that calls for rapidly strengthening AMIS is not a feasible one, especially given that the African Union itself is a decision-by-consensus organization that has the Sudanese government as one of its crucial members.
If planned and executed correctly, a multinational intervention force would have the resources, troop numbers, and mandate necessary to stop the Darfur genocide. While the dictatorial rulers of Sudan have promised to attack any NATO or UN force that enters its country, this cannot prevent the international community from acting. The reasons here are ultimately moral. When millions of lives are literally close to death in an ongoing genocide—lives exposed to daily bombing, deliberate starvation, and brutal gang-rape—those in positions of power cannot allow the violence to go unchecked. In no other scenario is intervention a more just cause.
Alrabae Adam Ezaldeen
Supervisor of foreign Affairs & General Secretary of Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM/A-A)
In United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland’s Chapter
20- 11- 2006 A monitoring presence called the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is in Darfur right now. Originally, the international community placed its hope in AMIS, expecting it to protect civilians. But it is clear now that it does not have the resources or the troop numbers to patrol a region the size of Texas. And it does not have the proper mandate: legally, AMIS is forbidden from proactively engaging the genocidaires, since it is limited to guarding international monitors in the region. The AU itself has said that it doesn't have the resources for a robust peacekeeping mission. A solution that calls for rapidly strengthening AMIS is not a feasible one, especially given that the African Union itself is a decision-by-consensus organization that has the Sudanese government as one of its crucial members.
If planned and executed correctly, a multinational intervention force would have the resources, troop numbers, and mandate necessary to stop the Darfur genocide. While the dictatorial rulers of Sudan have promised to attack any NATO or UN force that enters its country, this cannot prevent the international community from acting. The reasons here are ultimately moral. When millions of lives are literally close to death in an ongoing genocide—lives exposed to daily bombing, deliberate starvation, and brutal gang-rape—those in positions of power cannot allow the violence to go unchecked. In no other scenario is intervention a more just cause.
Alrabae Adam Ezaldeen
Supervisor of foreign Affairs & General Secretary of Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM/A-A)
In United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland’s Chapter
No comments:
Post a Comment