Getting UN troops to Darfur - why wait?
Blogged by: Alex Whiting
Now the United Nations has the green light from Sudan to send 3,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, why will it take up to six months to get them there? After months of negotiations and shuttle diplomacy with Khartoum the idea can't come as a complete surprise to all concerned.
Well, not surprisingly, Darfur is one of the most challenging places to send peacekeepers. Here are some of the hurdles organisers still have to navigate:
First they need to get the money together - about $300 million - and negotiate with U.N. members for personnel and equipment. Although several countries agreed in principle to help out, they were reluctant to pledge anything until Khartoum had signed up to the idea. A U.N. official told me off the record that so far Nigeria, Egypt, Norway, Sweden, Jordan, Bangladesh and Pakistan look set to join the mission.
Next they have to sort out the "logistics". Another U.N. official told me that in this case logistics means negotiating with the Sudanese government for land so they can build accommodation and offices for the new personnel. Then they have to ship out materials to construct the homes, find a way to keep the staff safe, and last but not least make sure they've got water.
The issue of water is no joke. The peacekeepers will need to have their supplies airlifted out - there's no one in Darfur itself who can supply food and water, and transporting them by road is a tricky business since it would mean picking a route through volatile Chad or Central African Republic.
The new peacekeepers aren't actually going in with weapons to contain the widespread violence. They'll be made up of engineers, communications specialists and the like to support the tiny African Union force which is trying to protect civilians in an area the size of France. The idea - at least as far as the United Nations is concerned - is they will form a "support package" for an expanded U.N./AU hybrid force yet to be agreed.
Getting anything organised under the circumstances seems a tall order. Add to that Khartoum's reluctance to allow foreigners into Darfur, the need for multilateral negotiations to extract troops and the U.N.'s mega-bureaucracy and you find yourself wading through pretty thick treacle.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
7 responses to “Getting UN troops to Darfur - why wait?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
25 Apr 2007 07:36:28 GMT
Getting the consent of the government of Sudan and swift deployment of UN troops are hinging on the way and integrity of UN's plans around addressing the appalling humanitarian situation in Darfur. The UN should have similarly been preoccupied by how to promptly deploy UN troops as it gets Sudan's consent. Given the difficulties ahead, UN troops deployment should have been worked out beforehand to meet the urgency of the situation in Darfur.
26 Apr 2007 07:24:41 GMT
I definately agree with Abdullah. The UN should have extended sesions, cut the beaurocracy and get the peacekeeps on the ground immediately. And the should be planning the next steps.
26 Apr 2007 07:25:01 GMT
Please un help the people of Darfur and Sudan in General if you are not in Darfur you don't now what is happening there, the people of Darfur need your urgent assistance please UNITED NATION IS TO SOMETHING.
26 Apr 2007 07:29:38 GMT
Why Bother? The United Nations Peacekeepers are the most ill trained, ill equipped, and are never dispatched in significant enough numbers to make any kind of difference. The history of the UN peacekeepers is a sad story of a good idea without the political will or equipment to back them up. Look at Rawanda how about Bosnia? It's time to either get real soldiers who have the will and the equipment to go in and do the job or stop wasting money.
26 Apr 2007 19:48:23 GMT
Now that Sudan is withholding the delivery of more than 100,000 tons of sourghum to the refugees, why is it taking so long to commence sanctions against the country? What makes this even more absurd, if it's even possible for additional absurdity, is the suspicion that Sudan may be stalling the emergency shipment because it wants the UN and other forces to , get this: BUY the emergency food from THEIR country directly!!! This is becoming a circus with a barbaric "regime" (I can't bring myself to address Sudan as a country any longer) as the ringmaster. If groundforces require additional planning, oversight and diplomacy, I suggest we begin squeezing the lifeline to Sudan itself much as it is doing to Darfur. How can this country begin to take our perceptions and reactions as seriously when we appear content to voice our disproval from the sidelines?
27 Apr 2007 07:25:31 GMT
UN peacekeepers are as well trained as their home countries army. I agree that often times forces arrive undermanned, and with equipment ill suited to the mission or environment. Moreover I would agree that the political will is most often lacking. Governments typically care more for looking benevolent than actually being it. I think however that your last statement is insulting and shows you know little of peacekeeping. If you drive a tank out and tell both sides of a conflict to stop, they may stop for a while but unless you can solve the underlying issues they will start up again. Or they may just blow up your tank. The tribal issues and rebel alliances in the Sudan are far more complicated than the atypical European conflict. The AU has been doing excellent work with their minimal resources and lack of support from most of the international community. (I notice Canadian armoured vehicles are in use by the AU peacekeepers) On an off topic - Maybe one day the so called 'humanitarians' out there that think the peacekeeping troops internationally should be doing more rebuilding and less fighting will get enough sense to realize soldiers are there to provide security so that the NGOs, Aid Agencies, and the country can get back on their feet.
09 May 2007 08:22:23 GMT
Send in the troops! Ignore the Sudanese government since they are part of the problem. The diplomatic "crisis" that ensues with Sudan as a result is going to be a playground fight compared to the atrocities in Darfur