Madam, - The much-publicised UN Security Council resolution designed to end the tragedy of Darfur is, sadly, unlikely to be successful. It leaves too many questions which demand answers:
• Why did the Security Council mandate a hybrid force? The African Union has patently failed in its duty to protect the people of Darfur. Its forces are not trusted on the ground, they are ineffectual, and they are defecting in their droves. The UN should act independently, as it does elsewhere.
• Why has there been a watered-down role for the international force? It would appear that it will monitor the situation, and be allowed to use force only when attacked. This has a resonance with Somalia in 1992 and Rwanda in 1994 when the poorest paid the heaviest price.
• Why will it take six months to assemble the force - when, in the words of Gordon Brown, this is the worst tragedy in the world? Where is the urgency?
• Why has China suddenly agreed to this, seemingly out of the blue? It has been the consistent opponent of any international deployment of troops in Darfur. Has some deal been struck involving the mammoth oil reserves in Sudan that China so desperately craves?
• Why has Mr Brown spoken about increasing sanctions on Sudan if the government in Khartoum doesn't play ball? Surely, if the international force is there to protect the people, we shouldn't worry about sanctions?
• What will be the precise mandate of these troops? Will they have permission to disarm the Janjaweed and take action against the Sudanese air force when it launches bombing raids on the villages of Darfur? It is imperative that we have the full truth and that exactly what role this international peacekeeping force will play is set out in precise detail. - Yours, etc,
JOHN O'SHEA, Goal, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.