Ah, Africa. It's been drawing a lot of attention in the media lately, and even making the cover stories of popular magazines like People. And how could it not? After all, Angelina Jolie just adopted an Ethiopian orphan, which she went to pick up with her good friend, Brad Pitt. But while Ms. Jolie was busy taking in a sick baby and someone else's husband, some other things happened in Africa.
Like the new government arrangement in the war torn country of Sudan. For those not quite up on world geopolitics, Sudan is the largest African country, borders Chad and Kenya and has been submerged in a state of civil war for several decades. It's also home to what is being called the worst genocide of our time-Darfur. Sudan has had two main problems: the South's fight for secession from the north, which began in 1983 and has left 2 million people dead, and more recently the conflict over the region of Darfur (which, as luck would have it, is both in the North and South territories).
The civil war seems to be taking a turn for the better (a former southern rebel has been sworn in as Sudanese vice president and the region has been promised more autonomy). But the Darfur conflict, which has become world famous for the overwhelming amount of killing, rape and looting, as well as the million displaced persons since 2003, is now becoming the chief concern of the United Nations. My first reaction to the news was "Oh good, they're finally doing something." My second thought was, "Oh God, what are they doing?" The United Nations, contrary to popular belief, is not particularly strong when it comes to stopping conflict. While it provides countless social and health benefits and necessities to those in need, its peacekeeping record, especially in Africa, is questionable.
First, there was the issue of Rwanda. Lots of genocide, lots of pleas for help and lots of stalling by Kofi Annan who was the head of UN peacekeeping at the time and now happens to be Secretary General of the United Nations.
Greatly criticized for its inaction during the great genocide of the nineties, the UN was more than willing to commit peacekeeping troops to another bloody African conflict in Sierra Leone. In fact, 17,000 of them. And that's when Sierra Leone already had a peace agreement. As a recent BBC article pointed out, Sudan is 35 times larger than Sierra Leone. How many troops would it take to take care of this conflict? The math comes out to about 600,000 peacekeepers.
Even if this number of troops was available, more than half a million of French, German and Belgian people running around the country may not be such a great idea for other reasons. The best thing that the Secretary General can do at this point in time is to send a limited number of troops in, but focus the UN's influence on the newly formed alliance between the North and the South.
If the country is able to stand together and stop internal fighting, it can gain the strength and unity to face the problem of Darfur on its own. Granted, this will happen over a long period of time and immediate intervention is necessary. But the best solutions to internal problems are not those imposed by foreign authorities but the ones created by those whom the conflict affects.
Lucia Bill is a journalism and political science junior. Reach her at lucia.bill@asu.edu.
