|
Letter to the Editor, Financial Times, 2nd October 2006
Sir,
Tom Lantos is correct: If Khartoum continues to reject the deployment
of UN peacekeepers, an imposed civilian protection regime in Darfur
should be the priority of the international community to neutralise
the military forces employed by Sudan to attack civilians, as pointed
ou in “We must mobilise pressure and fear to save Darfur”
(FT, Sept 25th).
The evidence is mounting that Sudan is positioning air and ground
forces. Given the government’s record, it seems quite likely
that Khartoum is intent on completing the genocide that it already
underway.
With the UN constrained by Sudan’s approval for a force,
the UK or US – which both have troops and have made clear
their willingness to join a UN-sponsored response unit – should
take unilateral action. The onus is on them to bring this carnage
to an end, and prevent another humanitarian catastrophe. They must
go it alone and put the lives of the most vulnerable before all
else.
Indeed the UN’s failure to send in troops makes a mockery
of their “Responsibility to Protect” commitment signed
by leaders at the UN Millenium Plus 5 Summit one year ago. It agreed
that state sovereignty could not be used to justify atrocities—or
to bar collective international action to protect those citizens.
Where “national authorities manifestly fail to protect their
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity,” the UN Security Council could put a Chapter
VII military force on the table, the treaty reads.
Despite the pronouncement of “never again” in the
wake of the Rwanda genocide, the massacres have continued unabated
for three and a half years.
Yours sincerely,
JOHN O’SHEA
|
