World -   

1
united nations darfur

Darfur won't see Canadian troops for years: analyst

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Hillel Neuer, exec.-director, UN Watch
CAN01_sudan

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (9)Add Comments Facebook   

Date: Wed. Aug. 1 2007 8:52 AM ET

It may be two years before Canada is approached for military support in the United Nations' peacekeeping mission in Sudan's Darfur region, says a UN watchdog group.

"In the short term, we will see appeals to wealthier western countries such as Canada for a minimum financial contribution and perhaps also logistics," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental organization.

The UN Security Council unanimously voted Tuesday to authorize a force of up to 26,000 troops to protect civilians in violence-plagued Darfur.

Neuer said the force will primarily be made up of peacekeepers from African countries until assistance is sought.

"Its mission is to protect civilians in Darfur who have been subjected to mass rape, killings, displacement, to prevent armed attacks and to protect humanitarian workers," Neuer told CTV's Canada AM on Wednesday from Geneva, Switzerland.

International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner said the federal government is willing to respond to any requests "in terms of humanitarian assistance," but she said it has not yet been asked to contribute either food or soldiers.

Verner, who's in charge of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), deferred questions on Tuesday about troops to either Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor or Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

Verner said CIDA is setting aside $125 million over five years for a UN-sponsored school food program, but the money will go to African countries other than Sudan.

The joint UN-African Union operation hopes to stem the violence in Darfur, a vast region in western Sudan where an estimated 200,000 people have died over the last four years and another 2.1 million driven into camps.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described Tuesday's move as "historic."

UN resolution number 1769 will allow peacekeeping troops to use force for self-defence, to allow humanitarian workers to move freely and to protect civilians under attack.

However, they won't be able to seize and dispose of illegal arms.

A threat of future sanctions against Sudan was also removed from the resolution, which had been watered down during negotiations.

The force will have up to 9,555 military personnel, consisting of 360 military observers and liaison officers; 3,772 international police, making up a civilian component; and 19 special police units with up to 2,660 officers.

The 6,000-plus strong civilian police is being called a "hybrid" force. They will replace a 7,000-member African Union force, which is widely seen as under-equipped and under-financed.

The new force is to establish its headquarters by Oct. 31 and assume control of operations by Dec. 31. However, Sudan has to approve units from individual countries. UN officials estimate it will take up to a year to get the entire force established.

The Darfur crisis erupted in early 2003. Rebels, mostly non-Arab, took up arms against the central government in Khartoum.

Civilians in Darfur came under attack from a horse-borne Arab militia called the Janjaweed. The resolution eliminated a specific mention of the group, which has been accused of murder, rape and burning villages.

1

Add New Comment ( )

Chris J
said
0 0

My husband is in the CF and just got back from a six-month tour in Sudan. What he saw is life altering. To say it is not our problem is ignorant and disgusting. If this was happening in Canada wouldn't you want the world to wake up, react and help? It's about time we did something!


A good Canadian
said
0 0

China is one of the Security Council members. China has huge financial intrests in Sudan. Let them pony up their troops.

There is no good reason for Canadian troops to have to go.


Grant
said
0 0

Scott and Richard are both right. To add to what they've said and comment on Roger T's idea that the "U.S. should allow these people into their country", what would that accomplish? Show other groups that the UN is completely ineffective and that they can do what they want without consquences. While nobody likes the fact that military power is the answer we have to be realistic.


Nelly
said
0 0

We have been aware of this cleansing since summer 2004, and finally in 2007 UN is reacting?? Bravo!

David J
said
0 0

Given the UN's past successes in Africa, I suggest you imperialists who want to impose the will of us foreigners on an independent state should buy yourselves some equipment and put your own butts on the line. Canadian military personnel should only be placed in harm's way for the defence of Canada and our immediate allies. Darfur is of no interest to us. No point in going over there just to make enemies and participate in another botched UN attempt at world policing.


Richard
said
0 0

It is not "western governments" imposing their will upon Sudan; it is the United Nations agreeing--very belatedly--to insert international troops to stop a humanitarian catastrophe. Have you never heard of the Responsibility to Protect? If not, I suggest that you go read it.
Arguing that Canada and other nations should simply stand back and watch genocide unfold is an utter abdication of our principles and values, and is tantamount to giving the Sudanese government approval for its abhorrent actions.


Scott Buck
said
0 0

This situation is far different from Iraq. More troops can definitely stabilize the situation if they are sent in with a peace keeping mandate. Unfortunately the UN ties the missions military commanders hands when sending them. Look at Rwanda; a comparable situation. If the troops had been free of UN restrictions on weapon seizures, limited movement and rules of engagement thousands of lives could have been saved. I can't believe the slow, and poor response of the international community.

David J
said
0 0

What gives western governments the right to send armed personnel into another independent nation? Not only that, it is a country whose culture we far from understand. Not a drop of Canadian blood should be risked for the internal affairs of a foreign land. Have we learned nothing from Iraq? It is none of our business.

Roger T
said
0 0

I doubt that sending more military power will help ease the siuation. Look at Iraq for example.

The U.S. should allow these people into their country since they are pushing so hard on this issue. Military power isn't going to resolve the situation. The money can be spent in better ways. Give entry to these people to your country so they can improve their standard of living as you wish.

Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's World Stories

U.S. President Barack Obama and former U.S. President George W. Bush walk from the stage in the East Room of the White House in Washington after unveiling of the Bush portrait, Thursday, May 31, 2012. (AP / Carolyn Kaster)

Bush, Obama share stage, laughs at the White House

More   10 Comments 10    1 Video(s) 1

Keegan O'Brien leads chants as members of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community protest the Defense of Marriage Act outside a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Boston, June 23, 2009. (AP / Elise Amendola)

U.S. court rules gay marriage law unconstitutional

More

mexico, election, nieto, debate,

Leftist candidate gains ground in Mexico race

More