Developments in Chad have International Analysts, Aid Groups and the UN on Edge.
Chad, one of Africa's poorest countries is now the site of intense diplomatic negotiations
Over the past 5 years, genocide and proxy wars have ravaged the border region between the African nations of Sudan and Chad. However, in the face of strong misgivings by the United Nations and the international community, thawing relations between the countries’ leaders may bring an end to the cross-border battles and result in the expulsion of UN peacekeeping troops. Many international analysts, aid groups and the UN are on edge.
Chad’s President Idriss Deby said last Wednesday that he would travel to Khartoum this week for talks with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, his first visit there in six years of rocky relations between the two oil-producing rivals. Mr. Deby who has been in power since 1991 and pushed through a successful referendum eliminating term limits in 2006, is widely regarded as one of Africa’s most corrupt leaders. Mr. al-Bashir, we should not forget, has been indicted for war crimes by the International Court of Justice for his role in the Darfur genocide and does not rank any higher on the corruption chart.
Chad and Sudan have repeatedly traded accusations against each other, while overtly supporting each other’s rebel groups through weapons and safe havens. Sudanese backed rebels even nearly succeeded in taking control of Chad’s capital in February 2008, before being driven back by Deby’s forces. However, a new agreement between the two counties to form a joint border patrol has resulted in the government of Chad refusing to allow the United Nations to continue its peacekeeping and humanitarian role in the country. “We have officially notified the special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General of our wish to not renew MINURCAT’s mandate,” said General Oky Dagache, Chadian President Idriss Deby’s representative to the MINURCAT, as the UN mission in Chad is known.
One might deduct that this stipulation was a quid-pro quo request of Sudan’s government in the agreement as well.
view large map
The expulsion of the UN in this country would be a profound mistake at this time, but the governments of Chad and Sudan seem unconcerned about the practical ramifications. The UN force in Chad has been fulfilling a critical role in the maintenance of peace and order, the training of police forces and local judiciary, and the delivery of essential humanitarian aid assistance. After many years, the toxic mixture of armed rebel groups, drought conditions, corruption, oil profits and millions of refugees has critically impaired the people in this region to project and feed themselves.
The peacekeeping mission, established by the Security Council in 2007, is mandated to protect civilians and refugees as well as promote human rights and peace in the troubled northeastern part of the Central African Republic and eastern Chad. Right now 3,032 uniformed troops from 40 countries are stationed at four forward bases.
Sources at the UN Department of Peacekeeping say this posturing by Chad could be a ploy to extract greater concessions from the UN and reduce the scope of the mission, but others think Chad is not bluffing. Both Chad’s and Sudan’s leaders see the international presences as an infringement on their sovereignty and would like international observers out of this region so they could suppress rebel groups.
Despite Chad’s request, some western governments are maintaining a wait and see attitude. 200 Irish soldiers are still scheduled to depart on Sunday (Feb 7) for a four-month tour of duty and UN diplomats engaged in high-level discussions with Chad over the peacekeeping mission’s mandate have been reportedly instructed by the United States not to make any agreements in Chad, before returning to UNHQ in New York to debrief others. We’ll certainly look forward to upcoming developments.
The woes of implementing RtoP
Filed under: Africa, Commentary, Genocide, Human Rights, Responsibility to Protect, United Nations
Translating words into deeds.
By: Freedom-Kai Phillips
At what point in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe does a sovereign State lose its right to manage its own internal affairs without outside interference? What threshold must be reached before the international community has the legal right to intervene when massive human rights violations are being committed in a country? Earlier this week at the United Nations, these questions were given their first serious consideration on the international stage.
With a predictably cautious resolve the international community has inevitably begun to discuss and consider the complexities of implementing “the responsibility to protect” (RtoP) doctrine. Having longstanding roots in customary law, but being first formally introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001 and subsequently clarified in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit outcome document, RtoP is an ever-evolving and innovative international legal concept aimed at preventing genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Realistically, if these initial United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) plenary debates are any indication, the process of translating progressive policy into pragmatic practice will be a road riddled with obstacles. Continue reading…
