What wisdom behind barring UN official
Editorial, Al-Ayam
April 6, 2006 — What is the wisdom behind the government’s decision to bar the UN under-secretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief, from visiting Sudan and travelling to Darfur? What is Sudan set to gain from such unjustifiable escalation? We pose these questions in the absence of any reasonable explanation by the government.
Whether or not we agree, the reality is that the problem of Darfur has emerged as a large scale issue at international level. We must therefore deal with it within this context without sensitivity and without surrendering our national sovereignty.
If this decision to prevent the visit would achieve any goal we would have sanctioned it, however, it is clear that it was no more than a reaction which will cause harm rather than benefit.
The humanitarian aspect of the Darfur conflict is a crisis of an unprecedented dimension and two million citizens of Darfur are today, because of this tragedy, living in Internally-Displaced People’s camps. They have lost the ability to move and produce, and the UN is the one that is today responsible for keeping them alive while the world that is paying expects the UN to follow up the situation through its humanitarian agencies.
When a country decides to bar such a visit without giving plausible reasons for this, the first thing that leaps into mind is that this government has prevented the visit because there are things it wishes to conceal and which it does not want the world to see. This very feeling amongst the international community will have negative results and will raise the level of confrontation between the government and the international community at a time when the spot light is on Sudan.
If Sudan is presently in a disagreement with the UN about military presence, it is in the interest of the humanitarian front to prove that it is not against the idea of international cooperation but has reservations only with regard to the issue of military presence.
The amazing thing is that Sudan has not ceased negotiations with the UN about military presence and at the same time it has placed obstacles in front of humanitarian assistance, which costs nothing to the country and is of benefit to the citizen in Darfur.
This kind of policy sends contradicting signals and creates the feeling that there are several decision-making centres following conflicting policies. It is clear that we need a clear strategy to deal with the problem of Darfur.
A strategy that those in power in Sudan would commit themselves to in dealing with the world because the international community will continue to focus on the problem of Darfur, in particular the deteriorating humanitarian situation there and the protection of civilians.
If we manage to gain the support of international bodies concerned with humanitarian affairs we could face the idea of military intervention with their support on the humanitarian side.
However, a position based on fighting a battle on both fronts at the same time, is one that lacks political wisdom.