The United Nations has had a busy weekend, both in dealing with Sudan and Iran. I guess the latest vote by the UN Security Council can be called progress, but the "world community" moves frustratingly slow. What they actually voted on was that:
[..]the United Nations Security Council on Saturday declared that it would consider taking additional measures, including sanctions, should the Sudan fail to comply fully the Council's July resolution or to cooperate with the expansion and extension of the African Union monitoring presence in Darfur.
Not that they will actually apply sanctions, but they would consider it. What was the point of resolution 1556 in the first place if it takes another resolution just to consider enforcing it and then another vote to actually enforce it? But 1556 was non-binding and this is the only way to get such a resolutions passed. And even this one (resolution 1564) was not voted on by Algeria, China, Pakistan and Russia. From what I have read China relys to much on Sudanese oil to approve sanctions anyway, so the UN is just blowing smoke and the Sudanese government knows it.
One positive is that the UN will get more aggressive in determining whether or not genocide is taking place:
By its action, the Council also requested the Secretary-General to rapidly establish an international commission of inquiry, which would immediately investigate reports of human rights violations in Darfur, and determine whether acts of genocide had occurred there.
Last Thursday, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who was present at the meeting, had called for urgent action on Darfur, noting that it was the first time in the Council's history that it had been seized under article 8 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 8 of that instrument allows parties to the treaty to "call upon the competent organs of the United Nations" to take action under the Charter to prevent and suppress acts of genocide.
I have been very critical of the Canadian government's response to the situation in Darfur, Sudan, but I must admit the news release on the Foreign Affairs page makes some very good points regarding the resolution...maybe Minister Pettigrew is starting to get it, or with the backing of the "world community" has the confidence to state our governments position out loud.
[...]"While we are glad the resolution is as strong as it is, and that 11 countries supported it, we would have preferred to see a stronger one. We are troubled that four members of the Security Council were not willing to support the resolution despite sincere efforts to meet their concerns. We hope that after a closer consideration of the deplorable situation in Darfur, they will change their views.
"In our letter to the Security Council we asked for benchmarks and a timetable, to allow us to measure the Government of Sudan's progress using objective criteria. We are disappointed that the resolution did not include these benchmarks, but we will continue to press for their broad acceptance.
"It is clear that much more needs to be done. This resolution must be combined with increased international pressure, greater international support for the AU and increased humanitarian aid. Canada will certainly do its part in all these respects, and we call on the international community to do the same."
Indeed, benchmarks and a timetable would be very appropriate about know. Especially since the latest UN press release says "should the Sudan fail to comply fully the Council's July resolution...". Well the deadline for that one has come and gone and there has not been full compliance.
Where I find our response wanting is that as long as Canada's role is pressure, support for the African Union and humanitarian aid (read money) then sign us up. Peacekeeping troops to add teeth to any resolution, not a chance. But you knew Canadian peacekeeping was just marketing anyway right?
