Posted on 08/08/2007 8:14:26 AM PDT by knighthawk
It's hard to be optimistic about the UN Security Council's toothless resolution -- gee, why does that phrase ring a bell? -- to send a peacekeeping force to Darfur. Four years in the making, the resolution calls for of 26,000 international troops who will be authorized to defend themselves or to protect civilians -- but not to disarm the rebels or the deadly government-sponsored militias before they attack civilians.
The resolution dutifully promises not to disrespect Sudan's sovereignty. That's an open invitation to more stonewalling from President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has long railed against Western interference in the genocidal morass that he insists is Sudan's business alone.
The resolution also requires UN officials to consult with Sudan on the composition of the force, assuring that it won't be in place by the Dec. 31 deadline if al-Bashir continues to insist on a mostly African makeup. The African Union, whose 7,000 troops have struggled and failed to contained the chaos since 2004, can't come close to mobilizing another 19,000. (France, Denmark and Indonesia have offered to contribute personnel.)
The threat of sanctions if Sudan fails to cooperate also was removed from the final draft. Why?
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Ping
Waiting for the UN to come out for human rights to freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia.
bump for later
They resolve to be concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.