‘If we die today, you will be responsible’

David Bosco

14 June 2008

David Bosco accompanies the UN Security Council on its visit to Darfur and finds that even meeting the victims of the conflict can’t stiffen the Council’s resolve

Hundreds of the displaced had lined up to witness the arrival of their potential saviours. A few held up makeshift signs depicting planes bombing helpless civilians. As security agents with Kalashnikovs watched nervously, the Council walked quickly through the camp’s wooden gate and ducked into a large hut for a planned meeting with selected representatives of the camp’s residents. The ambassadors sat cross-legged on the ground, and they sweltered in the hut’s heat. A donkey brayed loudly a few metres from the hut.

‘The hour we have been waiting for has finally arrived,’ intoned a camp leader. ‘In the name of Allah, we welcome our honoured guests.’ For the next half-hour, the Council heard about rampant insecurity and the inability of the peacekeepers to curtail it. ‘Unamid can’t protect us and they can’t protect themselves,’ one refugee told the Council. Another Darfurian demanded that the Council force Khartoum to accept peace. ‘If we die today, you will be responsible.’ The ambassadors asked a few questions, but there was no time for a walking tour of the camp; instead they had to head off to an entirely pointless meeting with the Khartoum-supported governor of North Darfur and then fly back to meet with President al-Bashir. South Africa’s ambassador apologised for the brevity of the visit. ‘It was better to hear you for a short time than not to hear you at all.’ The Council could barely talk the talk, let alone walk the walk.

Security agents propelled the ambassadors through a throng of camp residents and into the convoy’s vehicles for the drive back to El Fasher. The UN helicopter again circled overhead, and Sudanese police raced alongside the convoy. One building the Council passed bore a large sign: ‘Sudanese Armed Forces: Construction and Protection.’

The brief encounter with Darfur’s victims was over. Had the consciences of Sudan’s protectors on the Council been pricked by the refugees’ tales? It was difficult to tell.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: David Bosco | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

sebastian

June 13th, 2008 6:53am Report this comment

The failed litmus test for that expensive talking shop and vote mart called the UN. David has done well to describe this charade so vividly. And so......is it better to have a largely useless organisation; or none at all? Would it be better to abandon the Darfur (and millions of other) victims the UN can do little or nothing for; or to continue with breadline rations for a few and false promises for most?
How much did that visit cost? Lots. How much was gained? Nothing.
The UN's often a cruel and wasteful disgrace. It talks itself into regular inertia. There's much interest in national (or private) profit - minerals; ore; oil; cheap labour; contracts drafted and sold; mining rights peddled - not humanitarian matters. It's disgusting. Our continued payments to it should be linked to reforms.

Riaz Ahmad

June 15th, 2008 10:18pm Report this comment

David Bosco, you and others like you know extremely well why UN is incapable of preventing mass murder and suffering; for the sake of national vested interest, you all are conveniently very silent. The problem is the scurity council deliberately designed to serve the vested interest of the powerful at the expanse of fairness and justice for the weak and poor. If there was a free vote of the member states, things will be totally different. If the powerful, like the USA failed to act, then all this talk of spreading democracy and human rights will sound very hollow and fake.

Post comment