UN approves peacekeeping force for Darfur
Friday, September 01, 2006
UN approves peacekeeping force for Darfur
The UN voted to send troops to Sudan, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. Sudan has objected, of course, (offering to send its own troops to quell the fighting in Sudan) but the State Department has been quick to point out that this force would be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and doesn't require Sudan's consent.
I can imagine that no European or North American powers (with the exception of Canada, maybe) will be scrambling to take on such a mission. There is a pressing need to deploy this force (that is supposed to be 17,300-strong, including the 7,000 African Union forces already in Darfur), since the African Union forces' mandate is set to expire on 30 September.
I hope that I'm wrong and that the world will surprise me, but I imagine something along the lines of the bickering that led to no one being sent to Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. I forsee lots of offers coming from poor countries without the training or capacity to run such a mission and a deadening silence from the big military powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, September 01, 2006
UN approves peacekeeping force for Darfur
The UN voted to send troops to Sudan, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. Sudan has objected, of course, (offering to send its own troops to quell the fighting in Sudan) but the State Department has been quick to point out that this force would be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and doesn't require Sudan's consent.
I can imagine that no European or North American powers (with the exception of Canada, maybe) will be scrambling to take on such a mission. There is a pressing need to deploy this force (that is supposed to be 17,300-strong, including the 7,000 African Union forces already in Darfur), since the African Union forces' mandate is set to expire on 30 September.
I hope that I'm wrong and that the world will surprise me, but I imagine something along the lines of the bickering that led to no one being sent to Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. I forsee lots of offers coming from poor countries without the training or capacity to run such a mission and a deadening silence from the big military powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, September 01, 2006
UN approves peacekeeping force for Darfur
The UN voted to send troops to Sudan, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. Sudan has objected, of course, (offering to send its own troops to quell the fighting in Sudan) but the State Department has been quick to point out that this force would be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and doesn't require Sudan's consent.
I can imagine that no European or North American powers (with the exception of Canada, maybe) will be scrambling to take on such a mission. There is a pressing need to deploy this force (that is supposed to be 17,300-strong, including the 7,000 African Union forces already in Darfur), since the African Union forces' mandate is set to expire on 30 September.
I hope that I'm wrong and that the world will surprise me, but I imagine something along the lines of the bickering that led to no one being sent to Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. I forsee lots of offers coming from poor countries without the training or capacity to run such a mission and a deadening silence from the big military powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, September 01, 2006
UN approves peacekeeping force for Darfur
The UN voted to send troops to Sudan, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. Sudan has objected, of course, (offering to send its own troops to quell the fighting in Sudan) but the State Department has been quick to point out that this force would be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and doesn't require Sudan's consent.
I can imagine that no European or North American powers (with the exception of Canada, maybe) will be scrambling to take on such a mission. There is a pressing need to deploy this force (that is supposed to be 17,300-strong, including the 7,000 African Union forces already in Darfur), since the African Union forces' mandate is set to expire on 30 September.
I hope that I'm wrong and that the world will surprise me, but I imagine something along the lines of the bickering that led to no one being sent to Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. I forsee lots of offers coming from poor countries without the training or capacity to run such a mission and a deadening silence from the big military powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, September 01, 2006
UN approves peacekeeping force for Darfur
The UN voted to send troops to Sudan, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. Sudan has objected, of course, (offering to send its own troops to quell the fighting in Sudan) but the State Department has been quick to point out that this force would be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and doesn't require Sudan's consent.
I can imagine that no European or North American powers (with the exception of Canada, maybe) will be scrambling to take on such a mission. There is a pressing need to deploy this force (that is supposed to be 17,300-strong, including the 7,000 African Union forces already in Darfur), since the African Union forces' mandate is set to expire on 30 September.
I hope that I'm wrong and that the world will surprise me, but I imagine something along the lines of the bickering that led to no one being sent to Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. I forsee lots of offers coming from poor countries without the training or capacity to run such a mission and a deadening silence from the big military powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, September 01, 2006
UN approves peacekeeping force for Darfur
The UN voted to send troops to Sudan, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. Sudan has objected, of course, (offering to send its own troops to quell the fighting in Sudan) but the State Department has been quick to point out that this force would be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and doesn't require Sudan's consent.
I can imagine that no European or North American powers (with the exception of Canada, maybe) will be scrambling to take on such a mission. There is a pressing need to deploy this force (that is supposed to be 17,300-strong, including the 7,000 African Union forces already in Darfur), since the African Union forces' mandate is set to expire on 30 September.
I hope that I'm wrong and that the world will surprise me, but I imagine something along the lines of the bickering that led to no one being sent to Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. I forsee lots of offers coming from poor countries without the training or capacity to run such a mission and a deadening silence from the big military powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment