Separately, NATO said it had agreed to a request by U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan to look at how it could provide support to troops there, but said
there was no question of it intervening on the ground.
"No one is discussing, planning or considering a NATO force on the ground in Darfur. That is not one of the options," NATO spokesman James Appathurai told a regular
briefing.
This contradicts publlic statements made last week by NATO's Secretary General that suggested that NATO might well be prepared to provide troops for a UN mission in Darfur. The harsh reality is that the African Union - even with NATO transportation, logistical support, and other assistance is still unlikely to be able to mount a serious force that can significantly reduce the violence in Darfur any time soon.
Clearly a political solution is necessary for the long-term, and economic and political sanctions are, perhaps, the best tools available to compel the Sudanese government to cooperate in any such solution. But, in the meantime, someone needs to put some troops in Darfur to protect these people. If not NATO, then who will and who can? It is a matter of both political will and military capabilities. right now, NATO and the US have the capabilities but not the will...
No comments:
Post a Comment