WORLD BRIDGE BLOG

Since 2000, Security Council members have taken a trip each year to Africa—to visit UN peacekeeping missions, to meet with heads of state, and to otherwise get a “real picture” of what is happening on the ground. Members will often visit camps to talk to refugees, internally displaced people and members of aid agencies who are providing services.

The United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems that challenge humanity and promote international peace and security. However, more of China’s allies have rotated onto the Security Council this year, making the historical divisions within the Security Council more pronounced than ever before and weakening its authority. This makes it more difficult for the UN to take concrete action, and there are few expectations that this year’s mission to Sudan, Chad, Nairobi and Djibouti (for Somalia issues), the DR Congo and Ivory Coast will lead to anything concrete.

Expectations are particularly low in the case of Sudan, as the Security Council has been impotent when it comes to Sudan for quite some time now. The Sudanese government continues to put bureaucratic impediments to the deployment of UNAMID, the joint UN-AU peacekeeping force in Darfur and refuses to fulfill its previous agreements. Some Council members had indicated that the mission would be an opportunity to reinvigorate the Security Council’s response to Sudan and reverse the Sudanese government’s blatant disregard for their authority. But after many discussions before their mission, it appears that the Security Council is headed to Sudan without a clear plan or strategy.

With the Security Council unable to act, it becomes all the more essential that individual governments increase their financial support for UNAMID and for NGOs and UN agencies providing assistance on the ground. It is also necessary to continue pressuring Sudan to fulfill its agreements, and to urge Sudan’s allies to increase pressure on Sudan.

Some Security Council members were determined to travel to Mogadishu, but because of insecurity, particularly in light of the recent attempt on President Yusef’s life, they will go to Nairobi and Djibouti to discuss Somalia. As Refugees International wrote in a letter to Council members, there are no easy answers for Somalia, but the status quo is unacceptable. The humanitarian crisis in Somalia is catastrophic. Somalis are routinely subject to massive human rights violations by all parties. Because of insecurity, very few agencies are providing assistance, so Somalis are left to fend for themselves. The insecurity in Somalia is a threat to international peace and security, but the Security Council has yet to come up with a response that is commensurate with the severity of the crisis. Still, Refugees International urges the Council to approach the use of an external military or peacekeeping force with extreme caution and to deliver humanitarian assistance in an impartial manner.

DRC is another area of concern for Refugees International. While there has been some progress since elections, largely due to the good work of MONUC, there is still a risk that all of this progress will be quickly reversed. There are still 1.1 million people displaced by violence throughout the east, and there are still armed groups attacking civilians. The Congolese national army is still one of the largest perpetrators of human rights violations. Rwanda is still deeply involved in the conflict in the east. Despite these threats, MONUC, one of the largest and most expensive peacekeeping operations in the world, will be under pressure to downsize. RI is hopeful that the Security Council will see the necessity to renew MONUC at its current size and with its current mandate in order to preserve the gains that have been made.

--Michelle Brown

Labels: Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, United Nations