« back to Rob Crilly - African Safari home

 

It's Not About Boots on the Ground

| 2

A UN-AU hybrid patrol sets off for Siliea in West Darfur. The helmets have been painted blue but no-one has got around to removing the old Amis logo
African aid agencies released a report today saying the joint African Union and United Nations mission to Darfur was failing to protect civilians. We're at the six-month mark for the Unamid force and its mandate is due for renewal so we can expect a series of reports like this. Maybe I should have filed on this story, but I needed a day off and for me the report sort of misses the point. The problem with Unamid is not so much that it is small and underfunded but that it is the wrong solution. Darfur was never a black and white war between rebels and government. It might have looked like that for a couple of months in 2003 when all the different players briefly lined up opposite one another. Today it is a conflict involving dozens of disparate groupings - rebel splinters, militias, bandits, tribal affiliates, freeloaders. What use is an intervention force when it is not clear how it should best intervene? The problem is that this is the favoured solution of Save Darfur, Gordon Brown and George Clooney. Pretty much anyone who offered an opinion on Darfur and its failing AU force came to the same conclusion: send in the UN. So I suspect that we are unlikely now to see them change their tune and admit that the international coaition has been sent firmly up the garden path. Expect more reports saying that peace will arrive in Darfur with more peacekeepers. But don't believe them. The answer has to be kickstarting failed peacetalks and engaging with the Sudanese government and its proxies.

2 Comments

user-pic
Alun | July 28, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply

Hi Rob, I think you’re right, and wrong.



You’re right, UNAMID is never going to be a solution for Darfur – but the report doesn’t claim it is. Even if UNAMID had its 26,000 troops it’s still not going to be able to stop government and rebels when they’re determined to carry on fighting. And, as we’ve discussed and agreed before (several times!) the massive time and effort spent getting the force approved detracted from much more urgent needs at the time. But... now it’s agreed and in place, surely it’s best to try and make it as effective as it possibly can be?



Just because it can’t ‘solve Darfur’ doesn’t mean it can’t be useful. We just have to be realistic in what it can achieve. Aid agencies can’t solve Darfur either, but without the aid they provide the situation would probably be a lot worse. While UNAMID can’t suddenly bring peace, what it can potentially do is carry out patrols in camps, at night, along main roads etc and stop (or at least reduce) the kind of daily “small scale” violence that makes people’s lives an absolute misery. Especially in camps, most people’s complaints are not about massive fighting but about a few nomads with AK47s riding into the camp at night and raping a couple of women and stealing cattle. That’s the kind of thing a working UNAMID could help stop.



The report doesn’t say more peacekeepers will bring peace – the first line of the conclusion says, “While a protection force will not solve the situation in Darfur…”. You’re right – the answer is to kickstart peace talks and get all sides to agree a ceasefire – but in the meantime, UNAMID could at least be giving people a bit of protection.

user-pic
Anonymous | July 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply

This debate is dominated by people who called for a UN force to be deployed. I don't expect them now to admit that they were completely wrong. Yes, an effective UN-AU hybrid that protected the camps would be a good thing. But that isn't what the intervention camp was calling for. If that's what they are settling for now, then fine - just a little dishonest. (I quoted Eric Reeves, I think, making this sort of reversal a couple of weeks ago.)



Oh, and does your boss know what you're doing?

What do you think?