Security Council approves peacekeeping force in Darfur

[CBC News]

The UN Security Council has approved a plan to send to Darfur just under 20,000 peacekeeping troops who will be authorized to use force in the troubled region.
The force — a hybrid of UN soldiers and African Union troops — would be under the command of both the United Nations and the AU.
It will consist of as many as 19,555 military personnel, including 360 military observers and liaison officers. As well, 3,772 police personnel and 19 police units of up to 140 personnel each will be deployed. The force will come from mainly Muslim African countries.
International Co-operation Minister Josée Verner says the Canadian government has not yet been asked to contribute soldiers to the international effort.
The conflict in the region has claimed the lives of more than 200,000 people and forced millions to live as refugees since it began in 2003.
Full Story
What difference do you think this new force will make?


More...

 

[Colpy]

Dare I say it?

Muslim troops from African countries are usually under paid, under trained, under equiped, undisciplined and often carry with them tribal hatreds that easily are brought to the fore...........

They have proven ineffective in most areas, with the possible exception of rape and murder of unarmed civilians, and extortion.

Good luck to the United Nations in this endeavour.....I hope they make it a great success.

But I am doubtful. The political situation in Darfur is a complete tangle, the size of the area makes high tech equipment a necessity for any mission to have a hope of success, and professional, well-trained, well-equipped (read "western") troops are the only ones that could be expected to have any success.

I think the greatest evidence that the mission is considered a farce by the powers that count is that China voted for it..........

I know I am a cynic, but.....

Mark my words.

 

[BitWhys]

...
I think the greatest evidence that the mission is considered a farce by the powers that count is that China voted for it...

nah. That just means the Olympics are coming. Not that things aren't likely to get ugly.

 

[Colpy]

nah. That just means the Olympics are coming. Not that things aren't likely to get ugly.

Good point.

 

[BitWhys]

Good point.

Thanks. Believe it or not those dots connected for me a few weeks back watching the Democrat debates. One of the hopefuls suggested a boycott. Once I heard that I realized it was just a matter of time.

should've tipped off Toro.

 

[Curiosity]

The U.N. and its' 'preacekeeping forces' are always the beginning of a large mess - which often ends up having to send military forces to protect and back up the 'peacekeeping forces' which then ends up in an all out massacre.... another fine U.N. failure ahead...toot toot....

 

[Zzarchov]

Still, its in many cases better than no one, even the muck up that is Rwanda, the peacekeepers did kep many alive. Sure many more died, but those alive probably are thankful.

 

[WilliamAshley]

It'll either calm the situation down (force it more underground) or escalate the situation.

There has been ongoing awareness of what has been going on in Darfur.

I think what is important is that SUDAN approves the actions, and has oversight - since it is their country to some extent.

I think it is unfortunate that a peaceful sollution couldn't be found in human interest between the parties.

Democratic and multiparty consensus in government is vital for ongoing peace - working for the mutual interest on a common goal - war really has no benefit in a place of reason.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I think what is important is that SUDAN approves the actions, and has oversight - since it is their country.

It maybe their country, but Sudan is complicit in the slaughter going on there. Sudan shouldn't have a choice in what happens next...

 

[BitWhys]

It maybe their country, but Sudan is complicit in the slaughter going on there. Sudan shouldn't have a choice in what happens next...

It might be a good idea to go easy on the "their" thing. Things around there are about as ethic/territorial as they get. Part of the colonial legacy. Not that it was necessarily paradise before that but it had a stability about it. and the climatological "anomalies", as it were, aren't helping.

 

[Curiosity]

Oh yes I especially liked the way the U.N. Peacekeeping Forces handled the slaughter in Zimbabwe - but those were farmers - wealthy farmers - white farmers - no loss eh?

The natives who took over the lands didn't know how to farm so the breadbasket which fed them - had nobody to plant and grow more crops.