Tuesday, July 03, 2007

May The Hybrid Force Be With You?

Neela Ghoshal

On June 13, the Sudanese government agreed to accept the deployment of a hybrid, 20,000 troop UN/AU peacekeeping force in Darfur, which would meet most of the requirements of last August’s UN Security Resolution 1706.  Only months ago, Khartoum categorically rejected the presence of UN peacekeepers on Darfuri soil.  What explains the turn-around, and does Khartoum intend to keep its promise?

A recent policy paper produced by ENOUGH suggests that uncoordinated efforts on the part of the U.S., France, and China have pushed Sudan toward a tipping point.  Sudanese opposition politicians, including Hassan Al-Turabi, concur, arguing that Khartoum caved to international pressure in the form of President Bush’s Plan B as well as a U.S.- and U.K.-sponsored Security Council draft resolution pushing for multilateral UN sanctions.

But it is too early to celebrate Khartoum’s apparent change of heart.  Mere promises to accept a sizeable peacekeeping force cost Khartoum nothing, and win the regime both unwarranted credibility and time.  A UN/AU hybrid force has never been attempted, and requires brand new mechanisms for collaboration.  Sudan has suggested the peacekeeping force be led by the AU, for instance, with UN troops playing a secondary role; Western powers disagree.  Further, the regime has proposed the most troops should come from African countries.  While the deployment of African troops backed by Western materiel and logistical support seems in many ways ideal – it would decrease the resonance in the Arab world of the claim that peacekeepers are a tool of Western imperialism – any bright-line limitations on troop contributors would only further delay the effective deployment of a force that, even in the best case scenario, will take at least six months to hit the ground.  Further, by setting the stage for endless diplomatic dithering over details surrounding the peacekeeping force – which organizations like Human Rights Watch prefer to refer to as a protection force, noting that there is no peace to be kept – Khartoum may be erecting a handy distraction from international efforts to create cohesion among rebel groups and to jumpstart a new, multilateral peace process.  Such a peace process could potentially be much more threatening to Khartoum’s strategic interests than the presence of possibly ill-equipped and mismanaged peacekeepers. Meanwhile, ENOUGH’s Gayle Smith writes in another recent report that “within days of agreeing to the mission, President Omer al-Bashir has publicly recanted his acceptance before audiences in Khartoum”, and an AFP report reveals Bashir’s recalcitrance in statements like the following: “We will fight against any attempt to impose international or Western forces ... if the West intervenes, we will have the right to resistance.”

The Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council, no less than Sudan, must be held to strict standards of accountability.  In the video below, Michael Doyle reminds 24 Hours for Darfur that the Security Council and UN member states have a grim record when it comes to carrying through on peacekeeping pledges.  Indeed, while the recent “G8 plus” meeting on Darfur was historic in bringing together major powers such as the U.S., France and China to discuss Darfur, little of substance emerged, and the African Union was not represented at the meeting.  International powers have improved their rhetoric on Darfur, but it remains to be seen whether this rhetoric will be matched by decisive action.