| Its only role should be to
defuse situations before they spiral out of control, writes John
O'Shea
Three-and-a-half million people in eastern Congo and a further 2½
million in Darfur, western Sudan, are currently facing disaster.
Far more than humanitarian aid, however, it is military protection
they need.
That might seem a shocking thing for the CEO of an aid organisation
to advocate, but the sensible and timely deployment of troops can
often save more lives than humanitarian aid.
If left to their own devices the people in the Congo and Darfur
would be planting their crops and generally getting on with their
lives now. Instead, they have fled their homes in search of sanctuary
from the violence that has erupted around them.
These are but two of the 70 or so conflicts in the world at the
moment, some of which are afforded blow-by-blow coverage in the
media while others go almost unnoticed.
Whatever the level of publicity, military conflict is increasingly
impacting on civilian populations.
Life was never easy in Darfur, but for years the people there have
managed to scrape a sparse existence from subsistence farming. When
armed conflict broke out some 18 months ago, their lives were immediately
made impossible.
Driven out of their villages by militias of nomadic Arabic tribesmen
called Jinjaweeds, who employ such basic tactics as rape, theft
and murder and who are reportedly armed and encouraged by the mainly
Arab government of Sudan, the black African people have had to flee,
leaving their crops to rot in the ground or be stolen.
Their land is now being grazed by the militiamen's cattle and camels.
Between two and three million people are living rough in this region,
which is burning hot by day and bitterly cold at night.
They huddle together for company and the illusion of safety in
grossly overcrowded and under-resourced camps or they take their
chances by hiding out in the countryside. Many thousands more have
managed to cross the border into neighbouring Chad.
This is where the problem lies for the aid agencies - because of
the fighting many of these people are beyond our reach. We simply
cannot help them. Aid organisations cannot function in such circumstances;
unless the landmines are cleared we cannot consider mounting rescue
operations.
The only force that can stop the fighting in such circumstances
would be a properly equipped military organisation with an international
mandate to enforce peace for the sake of humanity.
I say "would be" because, unfortunately for many millions
of people around the world who find themselves caught up in conflict
and cut off from humanitarian assistance, such a force does not
exist.
We have the UN and NATO, and a European army is about to be raised;
an African army is also being mooted; but none of these has succeeded,
or is likely to succeed, in protecting the vulnerable because none
of them has that as its sole objective and none is able to get to
the trouble spot at a moment's notice.
I have often come across disasters that could have been nipped
in the bud had someone had the common sense and foresight to send
in such a peacekeeping force. Many millions of people have died
needlessly as a direct result.
The G8 summit in Georgia came up with a plan to train a 75,000-strong
peacekeeping force for Africa, a continent that seems to be constantly
at war.
But perhaps a totally African force is not such a good idea. Some
of the disputes that it might be called on to police could be too
close to home for some of the commanders to take a neutral stance.
It would surely be far better for the international community to
establish a truly international force with troops supplied from
all over the world.
Their only criteria should be to defuse situations before they
spiral out of control.
Such a peacekeeping force should be truly international in its
make-up and be drawn up by the United Nations to be kept in readiness
to respond quickly before civilians are adversely affected.
The ability to respond quickly is the key to saving lives. The
Rwandan genocide cost a million lives but took just 100 days to
carry out.
As any fire officer in the world will tell you, money spent on
fire prevention is far more important than that spent on firefighting.
So it is with international peacekeeping. It is far better to concentrate
on preventing life-threatening situations developing than to mount
humanitarian operations to mop up the resulting mess.
Again, western Sudan is a classic case. If a totally neutral armed
force was deployed it could prevent the militias from attacking
civilians, who would feel safe in their homes and would now be farming
their land rather than sitting in dreadful camps praying that the
international aid agencies reach them before the militia.
In the Ethiopian famine of 1984 troops could have saved many lives
had they been used to get aid more widely distributed.
An international force might have stopped the suffering in Pol
Pot's killing fields, or prevented Idi Amin from carrying out his
atrocities in Uganda, and millions of people could have been saved
in the Congo.
We have a responsibility to help the vulnerable when they face
hardship, but we also have a responsibility to do what we can to
prevent their situation descending into the hell of Darfur, Rwanda,
Somalia or Congo.
Such a force could save millions of lives each year and allow humanitarian
organisations to get on with the myriad other problems afflicting
the poor, such as the HIV/AIDS crisis, the lack of clean water,
malaria, poor housing and lack of education and training.
The "to do" list is long enough without having to clean
up after yet another war.
John O'Shea is chief executive officer of Goal
© The Irish Times
|
