UNconscionable

May 5th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda


As the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan continues to spread, the country’s appointment to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights prompts an American walkout

THE cries of “hypocrisy” were as predictable as they were depressing. On Tuesday May 4th, Sudan was re-elected as a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights, despite government-backed atrocities in the western region of Darfur. This prompted the American envoy to walk out, saying that his nation could not participate in the “absurdity” of confirming Sudan’s place on the body. The Sudanese ambassador responded that America was shedding mere “crocodile tears”, citing inhumane treatment of prisoners by American troops in Iraq (see article) and the deaths of civilians during American raids on Fallujah.

Human-rights groups claim that around a million people from Darfur have been displaced from their homes, with over 100,000 fleeing across the western border into Chad. By one estimate, over 10,000 have been killed, and refugees report frequent mass rape. Mounted militias known as janjaweed have committed the worst atrocities, but government forces are accused of aerial bombardment of villages and of arming and co-ordinating the militias. If the displacement of so many people continues through the rainy season, the resulting meagre harvest could badly exacerbate what is already a grave humanitarian crisis.


The UN Commission on Human Rights posts news and resolutions. Human Rights Watch reports on human-rights abuses in Sudan. See also the International Crisis Group. Reliefweb and IRIN report on the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. The Sudanese People's Liberation Army issues news and statements.


The Darfur crisis is another episode in the frequent conflicts between Sudan’s largely Arab rulers and the blacks in the west and south of the country. A long-running and deadly civil war in the south has led to peace talks in Kenya, and there was some optimism that the worst could be behind Sudan. Then Darfur flared up. Black locals, mainly settled farmers, complained that nomadic Arab groups had repeatedly encroached on pastures and livestock. The government did little to stop them. As a result, two rebel groups formed in 2003: the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. Indirect peace talks have yielded little, and human-rights groups charge that despite a nominal ceasefire, government-sponsored brutality continues.

But a clear picture of that brutality is yet to be had—most of the UN’s knowledge comes from interviews with refugees in Chad. After much stonewalling by the Sudanese government, a UN fact-finding mission was finally allowed into the country in late April, but human-rights groups claimed that this timing was merely intended to blunt criticism of Sudan by the Commission on Human Rights during its recent annual six-week session. A critical report based on the interviews in Chad has been kept out of official proceedings (pending the results of the UN mission to Sudan itself), and only a mild resolution was passed against Sudan on April 23rd, to America’s frustration.

Sudan was re-appointed to the human-rights commission on Tuesday without opposition. Under UN rules, each region of the world is allotted a number of places on the body. The African group merely nominated four countries for its four slots: Sudan, Kenya, Togo and Guinea. The American envoy, Sichan Siv, proclaimed himself “perplexed and dismayed” that the African group would put forward “a country that massacres its own African citizens” (which Togo and Guinea also do, incidentally).

Mr Siv was no doubt referring to recent statements, by the likes of South Africa and Nigeria, that Africans should do more to address African problems. This new push for African responsibility has included the creation in 2002 of the African Union, which is supposed to foster economic and social development across the continent. Sadly, the appointment of Sudan to the human-rights commission this week seems to indicate that Africa is united in doing nothing serious about Darfur.

The tussle over Darfur will give ammunition to American critics of the UN. This is not the first time that the Commission on Human Rights has been at the centre of controversy. Libya was appointed to chair the body in January 2003, prompting hoots of derision from the UN’s American detractors; and America walked out of the commission’s membership vote last year when Cuba was elected. An ongoing investigation into alleged fraud in the UN oil-for-food programme in Iraq has further fuelled criticism that the organisation is ineffectual at best, corrupt at worst.

Awkwardly, this all comes at a time when President George Bush is seeking more help from the UN in Iraq, hoping that the world body will take a role in selecting and legitimising a caretaker government after the handover of sovereignty on June 30th. The American walkout over Darfur will do little to help reconciliation between the superpower and the UN—though it may at least bring the horrific abuses being perpetrated in Darfur to the world’s attention.


http://www.economist.com/agenda/dis...tory_id=2646661

___________________
Retro ...