TIGed

Switch headers Switch to TIGweb.org

Are you an TIG Member?
Click here to switch to TIGweb.org

HomeHomeExpress YourselfPanoramaNational interests vs Humanitarian interests
Panorama
a TakingITGlobal online publication
Search



(Advanced Search)

Panorama Home
Issue Archive
Current Issue
Next Issue
Featured Writer
TIG Magazine
Writings
Opinion
Interview
Short Story
Poetry
Experiences
My Content
Edit
Submit
Guidelines




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
National interests vs Humanitarian interests Printable Version PRINTABLE VERSION
by Steve, United Kingdom Apr 30, 2007
Peace & Conflict   Opinions

  

Sunday, 29th April 2007, was Global Day of Action for Darfur. This is the fourth of such international days of action to garner support in the call for the United Nations to step in and positively act to bring an end to the genocide taking place in Darfur, a region in the western part of Sudan. The international day is a globally organized civil protest held in several major cities around the world, including London and New York. There were speeches by celebrities and renowned international figures (past and present) calling on the UN to delay action no longer, but take interventionist measures to bring an end to the humanitarian crisis. According to the BBC, other events include a day of cultural events in Cairo including the showing of a documentary called Jihad on Horse Back containing victims' testimony, and a demonstration outside the Sudanese embassy in Abuja, Nigeria.

This is all well and good. Apparently the world is not only focused on Iraq, which has taken up a huge chunk of global publicity in recent years. What is quite disconcerting is that the UN has not taken any meaningful action to stop the crisis, despite numerous resolutions that it has passed concerning the horrendous and deplorable situation in that part of the African continent. What originally began as a conflict between the Sudanese government and rebel groups in Darfur opposed to it, has now spilled over into Chad and the Central African Republic, worsening the humanitarian situation.

Unlike the Yugoslav situation in Kosovo, in the late 1990s, where NATO –led primarily by the United States, Britain and Germany- intervened without the authorization of the United Nations or in accordance with the charter of NATO. The justification these major powers, including two members of the UN Security Council, gave for NATO’s intervention in a country that was not a member of the alliance was that the mission was on international humanitarian grounds. This is for a defence organization, not an alliance formed for military offensive purposes. Up till this day, the involvement of the countries which intervened in the Kosovo crisis is still very controversial, as it both violated Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Charter of NATO. However, the public were mostly sympathetic to the excuse of international humanitarian intervention given by the interfering foreign powers.

To reconcile the excuse for the international intervention in the Kosovo crisis by the big powers, with the lack of action so far in Darfur, makes nonsense of the justification of intervention on international humanitarian grounds. The magnitude of the atrocities in Kosovo, of the former Yugoslavia, does not compare to Darfur, with the UN’s new figure of 200,000 deaths! Yet, the leading powers of the world were quick in their intervention in Kosovo. Very unlike the diplomatic ruse employed by the significant powers of the UN Security Council to stall UN action in Darfur, there were no such negotiations with the Yugoslav government before NATO began bombarding Kosovo –and, this was even without the authorization of the UN!

The prominent thought in my mind regarding this whole issue of the UN trying to dialogue its way into Darfur, is that the powers behind the Security Council do not see a sufficient “national” interest of theirs to protect in Sudan, or her neighbouring countries. This kind of posturing is not surprising to the keen observer of international disputes. In fact, it is in line with our summation of a certain paradigm of the Security Council, which was mentioned in our March article entitled “For our security—or theirs?” In spite of the numerous calls on world leaders and the UN to take active steps to halt the devastation, human rights violations, destruction and genocide in Darfur, and the admission and declaration of the UN itself of the humanitarian crisis and genocide in the region, we only have resolutions to show for it –no action. A statement signed by celebrities during the Global Day in, calls on the world to "end its stalling and take decisive action". Under the same canopy of humanitarian intervention, adopted by the leading nations of UN and NATO when they entered Yugoslavia in 1999 without authorization, the world leaders could go into Sudan and stop the destruction of lives taking place there! Why the delay; why the wait? How many more people would have to die before the UN would drag its feet into Darfur? Must there always be “national interest” to protect? What about global interest? What about humanitarian interest? What about human lives? A life-destroying situation that has spilled over from one nation into neighbouring nations, does that not constitute “threat to international peace and security”? Must the land have oil first? Probably, the world needs a new interpretation of the UN Charter, as the current one hardly bears any meaning any more!





 1     


Tags

You must be logged in to add tags.

Writer Profile
Steve


Barr. Stephen Edetanlen is a legal practitioner from Nigeria, currently living in London. He acquired his DSW, LLB and BL from Nigeria. He, also, holds an LLM in International Law from London. He has a passion for contemporary global legal issues and practising law. Many of his written online opinions can be found on his website www.steveinitiate.fusiveweb.co.uk. He likes an intercontinental life, and does not wish to confine himself to a particular country.
By the grace of God, he is a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He presently ministers to the Lord's flock in London.
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.