sudan
Senior Member
- Oct 17, 2012
- 266
- 11
- 51
The United Kingdom submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council about the renewal of the African Union-United Nations (UNAMID) Mission in Darfur.
This unexpected move from UK, raise a serious question about the motives behind it.
Why is the report at this time when the tripartite committee of the Sudanese government, African Union and the United Nations is discussing the exit strategy for the hybrid peacekeeping mission? According to government and experts the report lacked credibility as it cited untrue facts which did not realize the situation in Darfur. It closed eyes about the improvement of the situation in Darfur following the army defeat of the rebel movements and spreading peace and security in the region.
Why did the report ignore the UNAMID role in the region? It is known that the hybrid mission has departed from its original mandate and instead of helping to keep peace in Darfur it became an element of frustration as was proved by the last confrontations of the mission with peaceful citizens killing a number of them.
If the residents in the area demonstrated against the mission calling for its exit, and if the Darfur Regional Authority recently accused the mission of acting beyond its mandate and insisted on its exit, because its presence is against the interests of the people, why UK is keen that it should stay?
It is in interesting to notice that the UK move coincides with the refusal of the UN representative to sign the UNAMID exit strategy.
Is UK more concerned about Darfur than the people themselves who are eager to see the quick exit of the mission which failed to play the role for which it was formed?
UK is strongly condemned for initiating such report. It should be honest and justify why it is keen to continue the UNAMID mission without realizing the facts in the region which are solid proof that the services of the mission are no more required.
This unexpected move from UK, raise a serious question about the motives behind it.
Why is the report at this time when the tripartite committee of the Sudanese government, African Union and the United Nations is discussing the exit strategy for the hybrid peacekeeping mission? According to government and experts the report lacked credibility as it cited untrue facts which did not realize the situation in Darfur. It closed eyes about the improvement of the situation in Darfur following the army defeat of the rebel movements and spreading peace and security in the region.
Why did the report ignore the UNAMID role in the region? It is known that the hybrid mission has departed from its original mandate and instead of helping to keep peace in Darfur it became an element of frustration as was proved by the last confrontations of the mission with peaceful citizens killing a number of them.
If the residents in the area demonstrated against the mission calling for its exit, and if the Darfur Regional Authority recently accused the mission of acting beyond its mandate and insisted on its exit, because its presence is against the interests of the people, why UK is keen that it should stay?
It is in interesting to notice that the UK move coincides with the refusal of the UN representative to sign the UNAMID exit strategy.
Is UK more concerned about Darfur than the people themselves who are eager to see the quick exit of the mission which failed to play the role for which it was formed?
UK is strongly condemned for initiating such report. It should be honest and justify why it is keen to continue the UNAMID mission without realizing the facts in the region which are solid proof that the services of the mission are no more required.
