The United Nations has made an effort to pass resolutions regarding peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These efforts however, have not made positive change in the Congo. Rather, they have only condemned the conflict. While these resolutions work in theory, the United Nations has no power to intervene. For example, UN Peacekeepers are generally stationed in an area and have guns, but are not allowed to shoot, and so do not have an effective way to defend civilians in conflict. In addition, the UN does not have the power to require its member countries to send any of their own forces to intervene, and UN resolutions are not required to be enforced as law in the countries about which the resolutions are written. For these reasons, UN involvement has been largely ineffective, often giving a statement but enacting no real change.
Rwandan conflict in the Congo among Hutu and Tutsi which began after the end of the Rwandan Genocide is also inflaming tension and animosity among all warring groups there. Beginning with an overthrow of the Congolese government and then a change of sides among formerly allied groups, Rwandan involvement in Congo has simply increased armed conflict throughout the troubled nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_Congo#2009
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monuc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo#Rwandan.2FUgandan_Invasions_and_Civil_Wars
It is too bad that the United Nations cannot do more to support the DRC. There should be some way that they can help more than just standing there. I am not sure that if they would be able to shoot it would help though. It would probably just create more conflict. Hopefully they will find a way to organize peace.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly can the U.N do- in general- ever? In every situation they seem to just be writing papers or clucking their tongues. Yet, would it be helpful for another armed group to enter the conflict? The U.N does have organizations for women and children, and that seems to be where thjeir assisstance could be of use. Posting U.N guards seems to just add one more element to this volatile mix of rebels, government and mai mai. I think that the only solution the U.N could really provide would be economic influence. The U.N could act as the conscience of its member countries, convincing members to stop supporting war Coltane, therefore effecting a lasting monetary effect that would force a change to occur. Then again, this is all very idealistic. It's just upsetting when it seems that the United Nations can't seem to get United and make a positive difference for its Nations.
ReplyDeleteIt is both an interesting and extremely frusting issue that the UN involvement has been very ineffective. Because attempts involving both peace and threats of violence haven't worked, there doesn't seem to be much of a solution. I think we need to realize that as much as we want to help in situations as tense and horrific as those occuring in the DRC, external involvement isn't always quite as successful as we would like. As we had discussed with "Half the Sky," communities in need of support sometimes don't welcome the help and dismiss it as insulting. As badly as the DRC needs our help, how should we intervene, and where is an appropriate place to draw the line?
ReplyDelete