‘If we die today, you will be responsible’

11 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

By nightfall, the Council was back in the capital for a planned meeting with Bashir. Police blocked off intersections as the Council entourage sped through darkened streets and along the Nile River to the Friendship Hall. A large conference room had been set up for the encounter. The Council members were on one side of the long table, Sudan’s ministers on the other, and Bashir’s seat was at the head. Everyone stood as they waited for the president to arrive. Five minutes passed, then 15. The duly authorised guardians of international peace and security shifted their feet. The Sudanese ministers bantered among themselves.

Finally Bashir arrived, resplendent in white headdress and robe. He smiled at the ambassadors and thanked them for coming. ‘Sudan is fully committed to the path of dialogue,’ he said. ‘Peace has become an irreversible strategic choice.’ But he warned the delegation that Sudan had become the victim of an ‘unfair and ill-intentioned campaign’ and he complained that the UN, not his government, was responsible for the slow deployment of the peacekeepers. In the private meeting that followed his speech, he made it clear that Sudan would never surrender any of its citizens to the ICC.

Early the next morning, the ambassadors boarded their plane for the trip to neighbouring Chad. As the plane left Khartoum in the distance, Costa Rica’s ambassador appeared deflated. The statement condemning Sudan for its defiance on war crimes had stalled. Several Council members, including China, apparently thought that its language was too tough.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

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