What criteria should the international community use in its response to security crises in the Third World?

Question

to security crises in the third world

using Darfur, analyze how succesful the UN or major powers has used diplomacy or intervention to help resolve the crisis...

Answer 1

That is a good question.  Actually, there is not standardized criteria for UN involvement or response to crises, in the Third World or elsewhere.  The reason being is that the make-up of the Security Council, the location of the country, its allies, etc. all factor into the decision making process of what the UN (and its members) will do.  

What "should" their criteria be?  Hmm, thats a big question.  Maybe start off with the obvious and work your way down.  Is their conflict?  If yes, then what is the number of casualties or the percentage of the population that are casualties?  You would need to define a number that is high enough to consider a UN response while low enough so that the UN doesnt get involved with a minor dispute.  Are human rights being violated?  Is there are large need for humanitarian assistance (food, water, shelter, medicine, etc.)?  How do you define what a "large need" for it is?  Is it likely that the conflict is going to continue?  Is it between states or just a civil war?  These only scratch the surface, you will have to dig deep for it.

As for Darfur, the sucess of the UN cannot be determined right now.  They have only been engaged for a few months, they need more time before an assessment is made of what they have actually accomplished.  Certainly though, the UN has done much more to stop the genocide than the AU could say.  The UN did attempt on many occasions to use diplomacy, the difficulty was that they were being told one story by the Sudanese government from what was really going on.  Now, they are using intervention to stop the crisis.  Has it worked?  We have not given it enough time yet.  Security and humanitarian issues are things that take a long time to develop, so we will not know for some time what the UN's outcome will be.

Also, I do feel that you touch on a good point.  The UN should develop a strict criteria for intervention in an instance such as this.  It took them how long before they "realized" that something was going wrong?  Turn that question around on something such as Yugoslavia, wow suddenly their response was so fast, I wonder why?  Wouldnt have to do anything with its proximity to Europe?  Or by contrast, look at the UN response in Rwanda in the 1990's, it practically did nothing until they were almost all dead.

Answer 2

The ethical responsibility of foreigners in Darfur, as in other Third World countries, is a complex issue. Does the International Community share liability for the catastrophe in Sudan? How much obligation does a foreign company have toward the protection of the human rights of the people in whose country it conducts business? It remains to be seen how the IC commitment to dialogue will translate to answer these questions. It has been a year since Talisman's first annual meeting in Calgary, but not much has changed. More non-governmental human rights and environmental protection groups protested at this year's meeting, and a few more private citizens joined their voices in disapproval of Developed Coutries policies, we believe IC is benefiting the people of rich coutries, while Third World powerty continue to grow.  In the meantime victims of Sudan's, Iraq and others civil wars continues to lose their lives by weapons bought with money earned from the business of oil of IC;

UN doesn´t work*

Answer 3

As long as member-countries of the UN-security-counsel place their own interests higher than the interests of the nations concerned (see China and Darfur) the UN will be a lame duck! Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed in Darfur and southern Sudan by muslims, just because they were not muslims, but actions of the UN have always been blocked by China, because China wants to keep her hands on the oil of Sudan!

Who cares about resolutions of the UN anyway? E.g. Israel was ordered many times (since 40 years!) to retreat to the borders of 1967! But they just don't care! And we find that everywhere. They just don't care!

As long as there is such a "security counsil" with the right to veto any desicion of the UN the entire UN is not worth its money and innocent people will just keep suffering all over this world!

Answer 4

When human rights are violated, the UN must step in to stop the atrocities.