Other

Viewpoints

Global Poll: U.N. Should Protect Against Genocide

Worldpress.org
August 9, 2007

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon (R) meets with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the U.N. Headquarters in New York on July 31. (Photo: Timothy A. Clary / AFP-Getty Images)

In a global poll released earlier this year, respondents collectively indicated their belief that the United Nations has the responsibility to protect people from genocide and other severe human rights abuses — even if it meant acting against the will of their own government. Large numbers of those polled were open to U.N. intervention in Darfur, Sudan, where Arab militias linked to the Sudanese government are accused of massacring civilians.

The survey was conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org, in cooperation with other polling organizations.

The study was taken in 18 countries — China , India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel and Armenia — in addition to the Palestinian territories.

Article Continues

The international press has not been reticent in expressing opinions and making observations about the U.N.'s actions, or the lack thereof, with respect to Darfur. To say the least, there appears to be a healthy amount of skepticism regarding the U.N.'s ability to provide an effective solution.

Former British Labor government adviser David Clark, writing in London's Guardian Unlimited (Aug 1), posited that the mission had been handled incorrectly from the start:

The fallacy at the heart of our failure in Darfur until now has been the idea that you can stop genocide and ethnic cleansing with the consent of those responsible. That error persists even now, as the resolution describes the U.N.'s "determination to work with the government of Sudan, in full respect of its sovereignty."

There is no credible reason to believe that this noble sentiment is shared in Khartoum, and the sooner the international community realizes that the better.

After months of pressure the Government of Sudan recently agreed to the deployment of a more robust AU/UN "hybrid" force. … However, there has been some skepticism about this breakthrough, as the Government of Sudan has proven to be adept at diffusing pressure by making concessions once international pressure reaches a crescendo, only to renege on it's promises at a later date.

The mission, to be known as Unamid — the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur — is expected to cost up to $2bn a year and will be world's largest peacekeeping force.

The new force will not have the right to disarm the militias and it does not have the powers to pursue and arrest suspected war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, the resolution does not threaten sanctions against Sudan if it does not comply.

Since U.N. Secretary-General Ban cannot possibly point to "progress" on the ground in addressing the security crisis in Darfur, or to improvement in the terrifying humanitarian picture in Darfur and eastern Chad, he is committed to the claim that the international community is moving ahead with a "peace process," and that efforts are underway to provide protection in the form of a UN/AU "hybrid force" … But the voices from Darfur, from the camps, from eastern Chad, from civilians throughout the greater humanitarian theater, now including Central African Republic, are all urgently one: "Protect us, protect us and our families!" The cry is painfully simple, direct, anguished. A fifth year of genocidal counter-insurgency warfare proceeds, and still this cry is not heard.

Despite the failure of the United Nations since its inception to prevent and resolve wars and conflicts, and its inability to eradicate crushing poverty and prevent climate change on a world scale, many (including those on the political left during last year's Lebanon war), continue to promote it as a 'world parliament'. But the U.N. is beholden to the world's major capitalist powers and cannot play an independent role. … United Nations' peacekeeping interventions are often controversial affairs and lay bare the U.N.'s inability to keep the peace when there is no peace to keep.

With 192 members and a mandate that covers everything from security to refugees to public health, the United Nations is the world's only global organization. But polls in the United States show that two-thirds of Americans think the U.N. is doing a poor job, and many believe it was tarnished by corruption during the Iraq oil-for-food.

If ever the ethos of "a responsibility to protect," recently adopted by the U.N. Security Council as the basis of "humanitarian intervention" is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering.

But it would be unrealistic to expect the U.N. to do anything in the face of this crisis, given the pattern of U.S. support for Israel and taking into account the extent to which European governments have lent their weight to recent illicit efforts to crush Hamas as a Palestinian political force.

Today, unfortunately, the concept of "responsibility to protect," which established itself a while ago is losing strength.

Web-Exclusive Alert

Sign up for both our web exclusive e-mail newsletter and our indispensable World Headlines.