Friday, November 10, 2006

So, what about consent?

In Friday’s Sudan Tribune, Jean-François Thibault makes his point very clear in ‘Darfur - Failure of responsibility to protect principle’.

His point is this: The tragedy in Darfur is without question; however, the idea that the UN needs Sudan’s consent to intervene is a different issue entirely. And, it’s an issue that's getting shut out of the discussion.
UN Security Council Resolution 1706, which called for UN troops and allows for the use of force, was passed on 31 August. The Resolution “invited” the consent of the Government of Sudan. But it can be argued, as the International Crisis Group did in its recent report “Getting the UN into Darfur”, that it does not formally require that consent.

But, with the May Darfur Peace Agreement all but dead, is it not the right moment for the UN Security Council to move beyond the post-Rwandan rhetoric of “never again” and to start making good on its very responsibility to protect Darfuree civilians by pushing for much more robust measures?

Otherwise, it might become very tempting to say that the Responsibility to Protect was indeed an empty shell, and to admit that we simply do not care about what is now happening in Darfur.


Anonymous Denise from Cambridge said...

The UN didn't have consent in Rwanda and didn't help protect people from genocide. The question is, further, would the UN have needed Germany's permission to intercede with the genocide of the Jews? Isn't the Holocaust one of the catalysts that formed the UN? How many Holocausts must occur before action is taken?

12:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home