Today I got done with my 3rd paper. It was good except for the last damn question. Determine monetary and fiscal policy expansionary strategies to take an economy out of recession caused by a sudden supply shock and increased war spending. Crap, that’s like 4 chapters combined into one freaking question. My head just went blank. Bleh whatever. It seems like the UN reached some kind of agreement with Sudan
Nov 16, 2006 (ADDIS ABABA) — UN chief Kofi Annan said that Sudan has agreed “in principle” to the deployment a “hybrid” United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Sudan’s troubled western Darfur region.
WTFish is “in principle” supposed to mean? You know, I’m not going to get excited over this until I actually start seeing everything fall into place. I’m in a cynical mood right now. Anyways the United States apparently approves of this new agreement. I guess that means the previous report claiming America was changing its stance over the Darfur UN peacekeeping forces and UN resolution 1706 is true.
UPDATE: Why am I not surprised?
Nov 17, 2006 (KHARTOUM) — Sudan on Friday denied that any agreement had been reached on the establishment of a joint commandof the United Nations and the African Union for a reinforced African peacekeeping force in the western Sudanese region of Darfur.
“No agreement was reached during the meeting in Addis Ababa yesterday (Thursday) on the joint command for the African troops in Darfur…What we are discussing and what is agreed upon, is an African Union force assisted by the United Nations,” Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol told the official Omdurman Radio.
Like I said, until our “beloved” president actually says HE agrees, I won’t care. A Hollow “Breakthrough” at the Telegraph has more interesting stuff. (Hat tip: Sudan Watch)
On the crucial issue of the mission of the new peacekeeping force – a joint operation by the African Union and the United Nations – the text is almost silent. Only 53 words are devoted to this most critical question. They are as follows:
“It should be capable of contributing to the restoration of security and protection of civilians in Darfur through the implementation of security aspects of the DPA [Darfur Peace Agreement]. It should also ensure full humanitarian access.
“The need to take into account the security situation along the Chad-Sudan and Central African Republic borders was agreed.”
Hmmm. Nothing about whether “all necessary means” – i.e. armed force – can be used to protect civilians. Nothing about when the contingent might arrive in Darfur.
And as for the strength of the peacekeepers, the deal provides for 17,000 troops and 3,000 police – but only if Sudan’s regime agrees. And Khartoum immediately said it would not agree and preferred a smaller force of 11,000 or 12,000 troops. Oh yes, and Sudan wants a say in the selection of the force commander.
I have visions of Khartoum searching for the world’s most incompetent general and insisting on his appointment.
All this is a far cry from the language of UN Resolution 1706 which called for a fully-fledged peacekeeping force only 10 weeks ago.
This measure gave the troops an “all necessary means” mandate to protect civilians and said they should take responsibility for security in Darfur by December 31. All that has gone out of the window. Rarely has a UN Resolution been junked so quickly. This is a diplomatic triumph for Khartoum.
What I find more interesting is Condi’s reaction to the agreement. All along the White House has strongly backed UN resolution 1706 and was very confrontational with Khartoum. Why the sudden change and why the wavering in stances? Does the White House want to find a quick solution for Darfur since it’s too busy with Iraq? Has the harsh language all along been nothing but empty rhetoric? I don’t know for sure but all I know is that behind closed doors in the White House there is a change occuring for sure.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Sudan needs all the help it can get ! Talkabout a country in chaos.
Sudan agrees in principle to allow SOME UN backed AU troops into Darfur. Sounds to me like they haven’t worked out any details and therefore nothing is definite. My guess is that reaching an agreement on how many troops to allow in is the big kicker. Something reallllly needs to be done and FAST…but it’s a relief to hear the US may have switched its position. I think that sending a UN force alone would probably just increase the level of violence and be met with a whole lot of animosity. The western world certainly has the funding and technology to help behind the scenes…but in the end, Africa is very foreign to us. We can’t solve their problems for them b/c we don’t understand the world they live in…
We’ll see if any of this sticks this time, the cynical side of me says not too likely.
My fear is that sometimes UN peacekeepers become part of the problem. The force currently in Lebanon is a joke. Lack of transparency is the key to keeping the keepers corrupt but now we have bloggers and the window to the world has expanded tremendously. Yours is a great blog, I’ll link to it and for now you will be my source for what’s really going on in Sudan. Hope you consider me a friend of Sudan and I’ll be joining the Mideast Youth project although I’m neither Middle Easten nor young. (See, I read your rules!)
“I think that sending a UN force alone would probably just increase the level of violence and be met with a whole lot of animosity.”
You already seem to have it very correct. A lot of people are blindly following calls from well-meaning intervention-calling organizations that could create a disaster. UN troops, especially white UN troops going in will only destabalize the situation. I’m very happy that America has changed its stance. Frankly, I was quite annoyed by the continuous confrontation tactics. The plan still hasn’t been confirmed by Bashir himself. Until he actually does so, I won’t care. For now, I’m happy about the AU getting strengthened at least. Anyways, until they all start walking the talk, I’ll perceive this latest news as nothing that major except for the fact that America has actually finally changed its stance. That’s one good development I’m very happy about.
Determine monetary and fiscal policy expansionary strategies to take an economy out of recession caused by a sudden supply shock and increased war spending. Crap, that’s like 4 chapters combined into one freaking question.
Just think of the US economy during WW2, and Vietnam. The question is designed after those two examples.
Oh no wonder. Thanks Finnpundit. There was one case study about that period which I forgot to revise. It must have been it.
What kind of game is being played here?Maybe they need better interpreters at these meetings!!! Either the US is reading too much between the lines or the GOS is being coy!!!
I’m glad the US has changed its stance too.
Yea, forgot to add: Rancher, thankx for the UN folly link.
Leave a Comment