|
|
Table of Contents (Incomplete)
UN InvolvementSimilar situtations where UN involvement is needed
The situation in Sudan has progressively gotten worse in the past years, and therefore the demand for UN humanitarian aid has increased. As a result of this, peacekeeping and humanitarian missions have been greatly called upon, with many groups being called to areas of military confrontation. Security in these places has been questionable, to say the least. Unsuccessful past efforts to aid Sudan have included the launch of Operation Lifeline in 1992, which ended when three International Humanitarian employees were murdered because of their suspected partiality towards SPLA forces. Eleven other UN workers were killed in the first nine months of this year. According to the United States Committee for Refugees, 40 attacks have taken place this year on international humanitarian workers by the Sudani Government. The Secretary General addressed this concern by not allowing staff to undertake responsibilities that could not be performed with acceptable security measures.
Many donor nations have pulled funding for the efforts, making the UN presence less effective. The Dutch aid minister was quoted as saying ". . .the donors can not be expected to go on paying for man-made disasters". This is one expression of the frustration the more affluent nations feel regarding this situation. Donor countries have been asked to supply $138 million this year, but many feel that this money is going toward funding the war in Sudan under the guise of collecting for the hungry. Sudan’s political conflicts only serve to counteract any good the international community is attempting.
The United Nations has taken a cautious approach to aiding the crisis in Sudan. Operation Lifeline Sudan had a number of restrictions placed upon it, including being bound by agreement to seek permission from the Sudani government in Khartoum and Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) before delivering relief supplies to the many people in need. The UN is striving to keep good relations with the Sudani government and the Sudani rebels by keeping a helpful and neutral stance. This means that they have refrained from aggressive humanitarian efforts. Each side must clear the destination and quantity of food before delivery. Unfortunately, each army attempts to secure as many supplies as they can for themselves, while denying the other side access.
The UN operation that is most involved with correcting the famine in Sudan is UNICEF. Their goal has been to provide food to the malnourished Sudanese children. They work out of approximately forty feeding centers to distribute the food they receive by airlift, to treat sick children and to administer vaccinations.
One of the most recent United Nations Actions in Sudan was a mission initiated by the Humanitarian Aid Commission. The mission’s objectives were to provide a description of the existing infrastructure, services, staff, logistics and resources required for the delivery of health care in short and medium terms, identify resources that needed to be mobilized, and to develop a plan of action for addressing needs of Sudan. This mission returned with many statistics, many worrisome stories, and many recommendations, but no definitive plan of action. As the Social Humanitarian and Cultural UN committee, this fact should be a notable point. Is it enough to merely assess the situation and state the inevitable sobering facts of starvation? Should more bold and solid plans for alleviating the crisis be implemented? Is the situation too volatile to risk lives for keeping order? There are many issues that the UN body must explore in this situation.
Similar Situations Where UN Involvement is Needed
Somalia-
The Somalia starvation issue has received much attention from the UN and all of the international community. One of the worst periods of famine was in 1991-1992, when 300,000 people died of starvation and related diseases as a result of fighting between rival clans following the ousting of their dictator. UNISOM was the UN group that focused on the problem. Many supplies and much aid were sent, including aid in the form of troop control. Military conflict was also an issue when aiding Somalia, and hundreds of thousands of people died while waiting for relief. Again, the fear of aid being rerouted was a concern. Relief agencies fed the fighters, rented houses and cars from warlords and hired militiamen as bodyguards. The UN had to pull out relief workers in Somalia just as they had to do in Sudan, after 60 US soldiers were killed in 1994.Angola-
Angola has received aid through UNICEF in conjunction with other relief organizations. Their prime threat has been disease through malnutrition of it’s people. Efforts have been made to create disease control surveillance, and to increase the amount of vaccinations and available medicines.
North Korea-
The starvation of North Korea produces yet another parallel to the crisis in Sudan. The North Korean government has ceased to distribute the small rations that formerly sustained the people, and many families have resorted to living off of grass and roots. The UN World Food Program estimates that $95.5 million is needed to feed just 1/5 of the population there (CNN World News, http://japan.cmm.com/World/9705/03/n.korea.talks.index.html). A unique development in North Korea is that it and South Korea are putting aside differences in order to more effectively aid the situation. They have engaged in talks, and South Korea has agreed to send $6 million through the World Food Bank. This is an exemplary model of problem solving, rather than letting the fighting hamper aid efforts.
Eritrea, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia-
Based upon the friction between Sudan and these countries, they may not be great advocates of UN aid for the famine in Sudan. Eritrea in particular has been accused of attacking the borders of Sudan, and supporting the rebels even after the temporary ceasefire. All of these countries have allegedly supportive of rebel forces in the South. They are more likely to support the traditional African animists, rather than the Islamic North.
Arab Countries-
Arab nations would tend to favor the government of Northern Sudan, since they share the same background. They tend to defend the actions of the Northern Sudanese government, saying that they are attempting to aid their Southern people. On May 13, 1998, a plea to the Arab League from the Sudani government to receive aid for their starving people was reported by Arab states.
Egypt-
Egypt has a long history of conflict with Sudan, much of it having to do with terrorism sponsored across the border of the countries. The Nile river is a source of great tension, considering that Egypt is downstream of Sudan, and therefore in a vulnerable position. Many skirmishes have arisen from this conflict, and continue to plague the countries. They would be cautious of aid actions for the same reason as Eritrea listed above.
U.S.A., England, France-
These veto power countries have shown past initiatives to send supplies and aid to help the crisis in Sudan, but, as stated above, are tentative about doing so. They would have to obtain a more definitive agreement that the food and money would indeed be going to the starving and not to the military before any agreements were made. Even still, President Clinton has decided to send a large aid donation of $75 million. There are no plans to involve actual troops at this point.