Deutsche Welle: Has the UN mission in Darfur failed?

Click here to read this on Deutsche Welle

On July 31, 2007 the United Nations Security Council decided to send peacekeepers to Darfur. Five years on, analysts say the mission failed to meet its objectives as the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. 

The conflict in Sudan's Darfur region has been going on for nine years. When it began, pictures of Janjaweed armed militias on camels hunting down opponents and civilians were to be seen in papers and newscasts worldwide People were outraged by the pictures but no concrete action was taken until late 2007. This was the time when 20,000 UN peacekeeping troops were deployed in Darfur after the United Nations learned that the conflict had left 300,000 people dead.

But since then,the situation hasn't improved, says Anne Bartlett, a sociology professor at the University of Chicago who has been following the Darfur conflict for years. She is the head of an NGO that promotes sustainable development in Darfur. She has also worked as a UN negotiator.

Numerous rebel groups in Darfur have different interests and ideologies

"The peacekeeping mission failed to reach the intended goal of protecting the people," Bartlett criticized. She argues that the United Nations should increase its forces.

"For safety reasons, most of the aid agencies have pulled out of Darfur. There is almost no humanitarian provision and there is very little protection. The situation has considerably deteriorated, in my opinion," Barlett told DW.

Many actors, many fronts

The situation in Darfur is complex. Initially, rebel groups fought for a greater voice against the Sudanese government and the militias it financed. But today there are several other fronts. Rebel groups fight the government but also each other. Groups with different ethnic backgrounds fight for territory and political influence. Farmers and nomads fight over resources and criminal gangs also operate in Darfur.

Anne Bartlett says the UN mission failed to protect the people

Experts criticise the Sudanese government for sabotaging the peace building process. They believe that the ruling government is reluctant to give up power.

The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against President Omar al-Bashir, on charges of genocide in Darfur. The Sudanese foreign minister's state secretary, Rahmat Allah Mohammad Othman, believes that the accusation is politically motivated and denies claims that the humanitarian situation in Darfur has deteriorated.

"I myself was in Darfur two weeks ago. No one complained about the humanitarian situation," Othman told DW. "Maybe they are confusing Darfur with other countries or another part of Sudan."

Tough peace negotiations

Othman also dismisses claims that Sudan still supplies arms to Darfur despite a UN embargo. In an exclusive interview with DW, the UN Special Representative and Chief of Mission in Darfur, Ibrahim Gambari,said, " obviously there are weapons , when there is fighting between the government and armed groups."

Gambari has considerable experience in how to talk to an autocratic leader. He has worked for Nigerian President Abacha and was a guest at the wedding of Chadian President Deby. As a United Nations negotiator, he negotiated for the UN with Zimbabwe's President Mugabe and Burma's former head of state Shwe.

Ibrahim Gambari is the UN Special Representative and Chief of Mission in Darfur

A prerequisite for a successful peace agreement is the cessation of hostilities.
"The only way to reach a comprehensive and a conclusive peace agreement is to commit the government and the armed movements in the cession of hostilities and cease fire," Gambari said.

UN troops should be reduced

The peace negotiations between rebel groups and the government have proven to be extremely complicated. On the rebel side, several groups have different interests and ideologies. In 2011, a peace agreement was signed – but only by one rebel group and the government. Ibrahim Gambari, however, is convinced that the United Nations will continue its negotiating efforts and extend its mandate for another year.

But he does not agree with increasing the numbers of UN personnel in Darfur. "The security situation has improved in many parts of Darfur, " said Gambari. "We can therefore reduce the number of troops, without undermining the gain that we have made in contributing to security stability in Darfur."

In the meantime the UN Security Council has extended for a year the mandate of the UN and African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. It also reduced the forces from 22,445 personnel to about 16,000.

Click here to read this on Deutsche Welle

WSJ: Your New Human Rights Councilor -- Vietnam invents a U.N. procedure to silence critics.

Click here to read full article on Wall Street journal

The Security Council's latest fumble on Syria might represent the U.N.'s biggest failure of the last month, but it's hardly the only one. So as a reminder of all the little things the U.N. also gets wrong, we present the latest machinations involving a U.N. group ostensibly concerned with human rights.

Vietnam's Communist Party-led government recently blackballed a nongovernmental organization's attempt to secure accreditation to the U.N. The Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation, or KKF, is a small group based in New Jersey that tracks the plight of the Khmer ethnic ...

Saudi Arabian draft resolution on Syria mentions Chemical and biological weapons

Click here to read full draft resolution Exclusively reported by InnercityPress

7. Demands that the Syrian authorities strictly observe their obligations under international law with respect to chemical and biological weapons, including the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and further demands that the Syrian authorities refrain from using, transferring, producing, developing or otherwise acquiring any chemical or biological weapons or any related material, and that the Syrian authorities meet their obligation to account for and secure all chemical and biological weapons and any related material; 

Click here to read full draft resolution Exclusively reported by InnercityPress

At UN Election, Some Vote AU Only in 1st Round, Ban Greets Swedes

By Matthew Russell Lee @InnercityPress.Com

UNITED NATIONS, October 21 -- As Ambassadors poured into the General Assembly to vote on five Security Council seats for the next two years, the Morocco versus Mauritania race continued to get more heated.

A well placed Permanent Representative of an African Union country told Inner City Press his instructions were to "vote with the AU in the first round" -- that is, Mauritania and Togo -- but after that to go with the "better placed" between Morocco and Mauritania.

Another major AU member said it would vote the AU duo in every round. But some say they hope either Mauritania or Morocco will drop out, to make sure that sub Saharan Africa is represented, "if only by Togo" as one Ambassador put it.

Covering this race, as well as the three way fight among Slovenia, Hungary and Azerbaijan and the contest between Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan was made more difficult by the simultaneous scheduling of a photo op of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Swedish royal couple.

The Press was told it would have to leave the stakeout area in front of the General Assembly so that the 10:15 photo op could take place. After some push back, the area for photographers was enlarged. But still due to the mis-scheduling, fewer questions to Ambassadors than usual were possible.

GA entry, guards for Swedes, AU not shown, (c) MRLee

Of the Security Council's Permanent Five members, the UK's Mark Lyall Grant and China Li Baodong walked amiably in. The US was represented by its Deputy Permanent Representative Rosemary DiCarlo.

Sudan's Permanent Representative went in wearing flowing robes -- national dress, they call it at the UN -- while all members of Pakistan's delegation wore green badges with, in big letters, "PAKISTAN." Colombia's Nestor Osorio stopped and to his credit did an on camera interview, as it's said he did the day previously about the death of Gaddafi.

Libya was represented by Shalgam, who after being Gaddafi's foreign minister defected and represents the Transitional National Council.

As Ban waited at the top of the escalator for the Swedish royals, he greeted some diplomats, shaking hands with Sri Lanka's Palitha Kohona accompanied by Deputy Permanent Representative Shavendra Silva. When another Deputy asked, what's the ocassion, Ban quipped, "Waiting for you, of course." If unscripted, impressive. But everything is relative.

There will be further rounds of voting. Watch this site.

U.N. Security Council fails to act on Syria - while for UNDP Syria is business as usual !

undpwatch undpwatch

@UN #SecurityCouncil has failed 2 react on Syria, which is disappointing - while @secgen wants a 2nd term this week saying he deserves it

When In Doubt, Slam Israel

by Claudia Rosett

PajamasMedia.com

For the Islamic despotisms of the Middle East, it’s an old rule of thumb. When things get tough, or confusing, or frustrating, or when you simply want to deflect anger in the direction of a communal scapegoat, go on the offensive and blame the Jews.

In the United Nations Assembly, where the 56 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference pay a pittance of the dues but hog a plethora of the policy, it’s standard practice. Gang up on Israel. At the UN Human Rights Council, it appears to be mandatory for the majority of members. Bypass such gross violators of human rights as Cuba and Zimbabwe, gloss over the provocations of such terrorist outfits as Hamas and Hezbollah, and, as UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer testified recently to Congress, devote 70% of the resolutions to condemning Israel.

Now we come to a moment in which the Middle East is in turmoil. Protests began in Tunisia, ousted the aging dictator, spread to Egypt and ousted another aging dictator. In Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Algeria, Iran and Libya, across a spectrum of polities that range from autocracy to some of the world’s most brutal despotisms, people are rising up. What better time for the despots of the Middle East to push to the fore a Palestinian campaign for the UN Security Council to — you guessed it — slam Israel.

What’s different is that this time, the U.S. administration, perhaps suffering its own doubts and frustrations over what to do in the Middle East, is reportedly about to join the lynching party. The Palestinians, while refusing to engage in good faith in negotiations with Israel, have been pushing for a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal. This has been brewing for a while, but the Security Council member-state of Lebanon (where Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been consolidating control) now deems it urgent business — so urgent that a vote might come in the next day or two. (The Security Council is chaired this month by Brazil; you remember Brazil — the country whose president turned up in Tehran last May, hand-in-hand with the prime minister of Turkey and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, exulting over a sham deal for an Iranian nuclear climbdown).

It seems the Obama administration doesn’t want to vote for this resolution. But neither does the U.S. administration want to upset the Security Council by actually wielding its veto for the first time since President Obama took office. Apparently the world’s former superpower would no longer dare to defy a group that includes the likes of Russia, China, Lebanon, and, of course, Gabon, Portugal and Bosnia and Herzegovina. So, according to a Foreign Policy report by Colum Lynch, the Obama administration has been haggling behind the scenes — not to use America’s clout to persuade the Security Council members to drop the entire thing, but to hash out with Arab regimes a Security Council “statement” that attacks Israel.

Israel, a democratic ally of the U.S., is right now quite beleaguered enough. Iran’s regime, while pursuing nuclear weapons and bloodying internal dissent, proposes to wipe Israel off the map . Iran’s terrorist clients stand ready to help, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah again stockpiling missiles under the gaze of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. Egypt’s Lotus Revolution may hold great promise, but Egypt’s future — jihad-dedicated Muslim Brotherhood and all — is still in play. This is a volatile moment in the Middle East. So what is the U.S. doing to clarify its policies and priorities? In the diplomatic back rooms of Washington and the UN, U.S. appeasement may be playing right now as a delicate balancing act; an attempt to cope with the pressures of a Middle East in tumult. But it boils down to the Obama administration embracing the same ugly policy as Middle East despots: when the going gets tricky, never mind the real problems and the real dangers. Go along with the free-riders of the Security Council, placate Nigeria, bow to Russia and China, follow the lead of Lebanon — and slam Israel. Is that really what Americans want?

Japan Deserves a UN Permanent Seat Before India

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS STORY ON HUFFINGTONPOST

Richard Grenell

Longest serving U.S. Spokesman in the history of the United Nations

Posted: November 12, 2010 09:31 PM

President Barack Obama arrived in India this week with a large gift in hand. After just a few short hours, Obama announced to the world that America would support India as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The support from Obama was a huge coup for the Indians but took diplomats at the UN by surprise. India, after all, was being rewarded despite the fact that it has done very little to help reform the UN. Ironically, it has been India that has stood in the way of the very sweeping reforms that will now be needed to ensure its ascension to a permanent Security Council seat. India has refused to support UN budget reforms that would remove outdated mandates and programs, refused to support tough new standards for the human rights council and has consistently worked to keep intact the outdated way dues are assessed on member nations. India, too, has paid just $11.2 million in regular 2010 UN dues but receives millions more in UN assistance due to its status as a developing nation. Rewarding India without first demanding support for basic U.S. reform efforts at the UN seems naïve at best. And agitating Pakistan while at the same time dissing Japan, which is also in the running for a permanent Security Council seat, seems to increase American security concerns in Afghanistan and North Korea.

Obama's announcement was another blow to the real UN reform he has never sought. The Indians, after all, have led the resistance to it and Obama has validated their behavior. The Bush Administration worked hard to reform the UN and its budget process but received only scant support from other countries. While India worked hard with other developing nations to thwart most reforms proposed by the Bush Administration, Japan worked hard to implement many of the reforms the U.S. was pushing. In fact, India voted 11% of the time with the United States on issues important to the U.S. while Japan voted 86% of the time with the U.S. Obama rewarded the country working against us and dismissed the country working with us. President Bush ended up announcing the U.S.' support for Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council only after it supported UN reform and other good governance policies. Bush's support for Japan was a reward for good work. Obama's support for India's bid signals his desire to keep the UN as is. Japan pays 12.5% of the UN's regular budget while India pays 0.5% (only a few years ago Japan was paying 19.5% signaling their growing frustration with the world body). That means India pays $11.2 million in regular UN dues compared to Japan's $264.9 million. Further, India is a net beneficiary of the UN and its programs in that it receives more than $200 million a year from just peacekeeping payments and the UN's World Food Program to help feed its people. A full tally of UNDP, UNHCR, UNEP and other UN programs will surely show that India's participation in the UN is a financial boon.

Supporting India for a permanent seat on the Security Council comes at an even greater cost to the war on terror by unnecessarily upsetting Pakistan at a time when controlling the borders and mountainous regions of Pakistan is key to rooting out al-Qaida. Almost instantly after Obama's announcement on India, government spokesmen in Pakistan issued statements pointing out that India has not lived up to its responsibility in the disputed territory of Kashmir and that it wasn't qualified to be a global leader sitting on the UN's most prestigious body. Pakistan's political class has roundly criticized Obama for his decision to support India at a time when the U.S. needs Pakistan's stalwart support. And Japan, the second most generous funder of the UN behind only the United States and one of our closest allies at the UN, was left wondering if it would get the same endorsement from Obama when the president visits Tokyo.

The Obama team's short-sightedness in dealing with difficult international issues in exchange for quick bursts of popularity while traveling abroad has made it more difficult to make progress on U.S. priorities at the UN. Obama has shown that he is all too willing to sacrifice American security for his personal popularity as was the case with Obama's announcement that the U.S. would no longer seek to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe while negotiating with the Russians and his flip-flop on promising to remove troops from Iraq as a candidate and telling military leaders to continue the course as President.

When President Obama arrives in Japan he should tell the Japanese taxpayers that they deserve to have a permanent seat at the UN table. President Obama should also be unambiguous that reforming the UN is the first condition for U.S. support for any nation seeking a permanent Security Council seat - even though it won't be a popular position. He should also make clear that India hasn't earned its seat yet.

Follow Richard Grenell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/richardgrenell

U.N. had warning of terror attack

By Betsy Pisik
Washington Times

NEW YORK — U.N. and Algerian officials were warned in advance of a December terrorist attack in Algiers that killed 17 U.N. staffers but they failed to boost security measures at the U.N. compound, a preliminary report says.

"The hostile intent against the U.N. in Algeria was present and well-known before the attack," David Veness, U.N. undersecretary general for safety and security, wrote in a 20-page preliminary report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

Six months before the attack, "the media branch for [al Qaeda in the Maghreb] issued a direct threat against the U.N.," Mr. Veness wrote.

Beginning in April, the U.N. security coordinator for the Algerian compound sent a series of urgent messages to headquarters in New York, warning that the likelihood of an attack on the compound housing seven U.N. agencies was "high" and that damage would be "severe."

In subsequent warnings, Babacar Ndiaye of Senegal, the U.N. security coordinator, sought barriers to protect the compound and other measures.

Despite the warnings, the compound remained at "Phase 1" of a five-level security system used by the United Nations — a level considered safe enough for U.N. staffers to bring their families to live overseas.

Mr. Ndiaye died in the Dec. 11 attack that killed 17 and injured at least 40.

Shortly afterward, al Qaeda claimed credit for the bombing, boasting that it used nearly a ton of explosives against "the den of international apostasy."

Local press reports shortly after the attack quote Algerian Interior Minister Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni as saying that the government had reason to expect an attack because in April, authorities had arrested a man with surveillance video of the site on his cell phone.

That man, an al Qaeda associate, was wanted in connection with an April 11 attack on the presidential palace in Algeria and a nearby police station.

It was the deadliest attack on the United Nations since the August 2003 Baghdad bombing that killed 22, and forced the organization to leave Iraq for more than a year.

Islamist turmoil has plagued Algeria for years. Up to 200,000 people were killed in a civil war that began in 1992 after the army canceled elections that a now-banned Islamist party was poised to win.

The war ended a decade later, but an Islamist insurgency continued.

By 1996, however, the situation was calmer and the Algerian government began complaining to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that security precautions stigmatized Algeria with "an undeserved bad image abroad to the extent that it kept out foreign investment," according to the Veness report.

The U.N. subsequently lowered the threat level in stages, ultimately to its lowest level.

Mr. Veness also wrote that the Algerian government was slow to respond to repeated requests for additional security.

He said "care has been taken not to apportion blame or responsibility."

The warnings were received at the U.N. headquarters in New York, but it is not clear from the Veness report how the U.N. responded.

The U.N. Staff Union, a New York-based organization that represents many but not all U.N. employees, has called for a full investigation to find out why better protections were not in place.

The group has publicly questioned why the formal risk assessment for that duty station was so relaxed, given the threats and attacks on foreigners and government buildings.

Just two weeks ago, the United Nations announced the formation of a seven-member panel to review U.N. security arrangements around the world.

Though the review is in response to the Dec. 11 attack, it will not focus on how so many red flags were missed in Algiers, said senior U.N. official Lakhdar Brahimi, who is in charge of the project.

Mr. Brahimi told a press conference last month that the blue and white U.N. flag was no longer a symbol of neutrality and protection, but in fact a target.