Arcadia Foundation

In a unanimous decision, the 15 member UN Security council today decided to extend the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) for another year (until April 30th, 2011) “with the intention to renew it for further periods as may be required,” the Council said. The implications of instating goals without deadlines run the risk of incrementally introducing ill defined objectives. Quite simply, a goal without a deadline is just a dream; without setting specific time limits, the UN might run the risk of complicating its objectives further.

The Council stressed the importance of the “full and expeditious” implementation of all elements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended 20 years of fighting between the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) separatists in the south and the national Government in the north. However, without absolute deadlines, UNMIS might not be able to make measurable steps towards defining and accomplishing success in Sudan.

In a place like Sudan, exclusive to disorganization through violence, the reigning concept which remains perfect is that there’s no end game in sight. Thus far, efforts in Sudan have been centric to a lot of educated guessing in which MIGHT bring about the groundwork to even see the possibility of peace… but not necessarily reach for it in tangible form. Flexibility is crucial, however, for a country that has nothing; an economy, human rights, health care, safety, or even a unified government, it more than makes up for it all in the amount of variables it has, often hindering progress. With so many variables in an evolving climate, it becomes a fine line between being flexible for mission success, to compensate for the variables… and sticking to the plan for the sake of moving forward.

“Although the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement have shown increasing political will to address referendum-related issues, they have made little concrete progress in establishing arrangements that would be required no matter the outcome of the referenda,” Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the UN recently wrote. The UN could quite legitimately need more time, though it’s also likely to believe they’re letting these variables dictate their operating parameters in which the endgame becomes further from sight. It seems from Ban Ki-moon’s own words, that the groundwork to even reach the stage to set peace terms seems even quibbled over between disputing parties.

Though the Sudanese are in fact joined by the UN themselves, sharing in the consternation of having to decide such groundwork, citing: “persistent localized conflict and violence” which plagues civilians. In Sudan, the groundwork to set the stage for peace is under the microscope and the question should be asked: Do we start at the top and bring leaders to tables? Or should the UN exercise its authority to protect civilians which undoubtedly are the result of the internal workings of the aforementioned Sudanese leaders?

Comments