These arms flowing in the continent...
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: IN WHICH BORDERS?
We want to reflect on the gap between the edifying principles in official documents in New York and the contradictory reality on the field of suffering and death in Darfur. The principles are known but to implement them is not easy because they are many interests involved and a lack of will to really protect people. What can be done in that case?
1. Principles and Norms: A lack of political will?
Usually the UN documents on Human Rights, moral responsibility of the international institutions and other resolutions are well written and good intentions. During these sessions, the members of this world parliament (UN) can argue and push a vote on delicate issues. But when it comes to execute a resolution, the will of people and the means of the institutions run suddenly short.
And so, there is a difference between the norms, the actions and the practices. The situation in Darfur requires the intervention of the international community. But the international institutions are more visible on the papers; in reality, there is a society of states with divergent agendas. On 31 of August 2006 the Security Council of the NU adopted the resolution 1706 authorizing a joint force of USA and of the UN to be sent in Darfur and asking the Sudanese government to respect that proposition. But can this resolution be effective where people are acting according to their interests?
2. International Community: a battle of interests?
At the surface, there is an apparent refusal of the Sudanese government –backed by China- to cooperate with the international community. Darfur is not Kosovo. The region is considered not in terms of people dying but in terms of economic ties with other countries of international community. Sudan‘s oil reserves has generated revenue through billions of dollars of international investment. With that money, the regime of Karthoum has bought guns and fueled the killing in the South as well now in the West.
Only one great power (USA) had made a continuing pressure on Sudanese government[1]. Meanwhile other members of the international community were reluctant to cooperate: “The initial international response to these “crimes against humanity” was anemic, and later action dilatory. From the beginning of the crisis onward, the United Nations failed at critical junctures to act against the regime, while the Chinese poured in oil investment, the Russians provided weapons, the European countries expanded trade, the Arab League offered solidarity, and African nations even helped elect Sudan to the UN Human Rights Commission” (The shame for Darfur).
Therefore the Military Humanitarian Intervention has to consider the fact that saving people’s life may include losing benefits and business for the companies and lobbies which are powerful enough in the governments and international institutions. This economic reason may explain partly the lack of will of the international community and allows different ways of intervening. It may also require the option of setting the responsibility to protect at various levels[2].
3. The responsibility to protect at the African level
According to Madeleine Albright, the problem is not a lack of mean but a lack of will to use force: “Over the past decade, a sporadic, pointless, and inconclusive war in the Democratic Republic of Congo has led to the deaths of more than 3 million people. In the Darfur region of Sudan, as many as 300,000 people have died in genocidal violence. The outbreak of killing in these countries –unlike Rwanda –was gradual rather than volcanic, giving the international community ample time to respond. It has responded, however, only slowly and feebly. The problem is not a lack of moral indignation – the violence in Darfur was widely publicized- but a failure to use force effectively”[3]. And so, we may understand the discrepancy between the indignation of the crowds shouting ‘Never again’ and the apparent inactivity of the international institutions. The responsibility to protect must be enforced by the capacity to protect people and the willingness to do so (Albright, p. 102). In other words, there is a need of having a strong army ready to protect[4].
With regard to the lack of common purpose for the members of international community, at least a consensus may emerge to provide a modicum of security by an expanded African Union force with U.S. logistical support and a mandate sufficient to deter attacks on civilians. Up to now, deployment of African Union forces has been agonizingly slow. The International Crisis Group estimates that a plan for extension to fifteen thousand troops must be done.
Conclusion
The United Nations Security Council is the right authority to take the right decision for any situation which needs a military humanitarian intervention. Their members must transcend their interests and make a right decision to vote[5]. When they could not agree, it is wise to entrust continental institution. In concrete case, it is appropriate to give a logistical support to African union forces and to allow them to intervene military whenever there is a threat to civilians in Africa. Today in Sudan a military Humanitarian Intervention is needed. It may come from the United Nations or from the African Union supported logistically by the United Nations and the United States.
Notes
[1] “Though belatedly, the United States has done the most to respond to the catastrophe, providing the lion’s share of humanitarian aid, securing corridors, declaring the atrocities genocidal, and pressing (though mostly unsuccessfully) for tough UN action against the regime. But the Bush Administration has also lauded Sudan’s cooperation in the war on terror and allowed the CIA to fly Sudan’s intelligence chief, Salah Abdallah Gosh, an architect of the Darfur atrocity, to Washington for consultation. Concerned that further sanctions on Sudan might upset the southern peace process, it also got the House to scotch tough “Darfur accountability” legislation passed by the Senate in April. To date the administration has not mounted a broad strategy to protect civilians and enable them to reconstruct their villages” (The Shame for Darfur).
[2] In the case of Darfur, evangelical publications and advocacy had forced China national Petroleum Company and many other investors to reduce their investment from ten billion dollars to seven billion dollars with the argument that the ‘blood money’ is used to eradicate people. This kind of campaign shows probably a different way of taking an international responsibility at different level. It does not affect only Karthoum; many others actors are involved in the business.
[3] Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty. Reflections on America, God and World Affairs, New York: Harper Perennial 2006, p.
[4] “A force intended to prevent genocide must be s a serious military enterprise; it cannot be cobbled together from the bits and pieces of underfunded armies, detailed for brief periods, and assembled at the last minute. Countries must be asked to identify capable personnel who will be dedicated to the job of humanitarian response and prepared over a period of years to excel in that function”. (Albright p. 102).
[5] Their veto power must not be used, “in matters where their vital state interests are not involved, to obstruct the passage of resolutions authorizing military intervention for human protection purpose for which there is otherwise majority support”.
Karma-Yoga
