The incompetence of the western nations in the UNSC exemplified in the DRC-Uganda Crisis
As news poured in of an insurgent group near the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)-Uganda border being in control Ebola-releasing biological weapons, the UNSC is sent into chaos. To make situations worse, MONUSCO, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in DR Congo, are pulling their troops out of the DRC at the end of this year. Especially for a nation that has been relying on MONUSCO for the past 20 years, this is particularly worrying, as the nation is extremely vulnerable to western-inspired terrorist attacks.
Like a headless dog, the UNSC members were sent into a frenzy to look for possible solutions. Without a leader in the debates, the discussion feels haphazard and unfocused. Let’s look at some key debates of the day.
#1 Long Term Solutions vs Short Term Solutions
The first debate involves the UNSC looking at long term solutions and short-term goals. While nations like the UK (United Kingdom), Belgium and the Dominican Republic calls for an immediate military invasion of DRC to eradicate the freedom fighters and seize the biological weapons through brute force, other nations like China calls for a balanced approach, calling for the UNSC to focus on long term solution.
China-focused on improving the infrastructure of the nation as well as better equipping the DRC army to tackle the conflict. “We have not built up the capability for the DRC to function as a whole. We need to build up the capacity of DRC to function as MONUSCO without MONUSCO”.
China felt that looking at short term solutions will not be effective as these freedom fighters will then move on surrounding nations like Angola, Zambia, etc. through the porous African borders.
Led by the Chinese, the issue of border security has been discussed on widely but faces strong opposition from narrow-minded western nations like the UK and Belgium. Such narrow mindedness has prevented the UNSC from reaching a consensus on this issue in open debate.
#2 Negotiation vs No negotiation
The difference in passive and active intervention has also been widely discussed in Council. While the UK, France, and the US favor a no negotiation tactic as it “violates UN laws” on “terrorist groups”. According to their imperialistic views, “terrorist groups must not be aided” to show that the UN is not “afraid of terrorists”.
China, on the other hand, calls for increased pressure on the freedom fighters and calls for negotiations with the freedom fighters to prevent further escalation of the crisis. This prevents further deaths caused by the crisis and will further stabilize the region. They plan to introduce improved infrastructure to treat the root cause of negotiations by improving the lives of citizens on the DRC.
#3 Prevention vs Cure
While China called for the prevention of the release of the Ebola-Containing Ecological Weapons and introduced solidifying DRC-Uganda borders as a long term measure, nations like Germany and UK assumed that the freedom fighters will release the Ebola virus and instead focused their debate on preventing the spread of Ebola virus through reducing the spread of animals and education.
Germany even claimed that the Ebola issue was not a big one as it is “unlikely that Ebola weapons are effective”, providing a dubious journal paper low on citation counts. They claimed that exterminating freedom fighters were the most serious threat, a claim that was unanimously disagreed upon in council.
The debate on the DRC-Uganda crisis continues as UNSC goes into private session. With the two camps in major disagreements over fundamental issues, it is unlikely that a favorable solution is to arrive soon. With each passing day of indecision, the DRC-Uganda Crisis will intensify. With debates unfocused and western nations fixating on their agendas, this Crisis will continue unresolved for a long time to come.
As news poured in of an insurgent group near the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)-Uganda border being in control Ebola-releasing biological weapons, the UNSC is sent into chaos. To make situations worse, MONUSCO, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in DR Congo, are pulling their troops out of the DRC at the end of this year. Especially for a nation that has been relying on MONUSCO for the past 20 years, this is particularly worrying, as the nation is extremely vulnerable to western-inspired terrorist attacks.
Like a headless dog, the UNSC members were sent into a frenzy to look for possible solutions. Without a leader in the debates, the discussion feels haphazard and unfocused. Let’s look at some key debates of the day.
#1 Long Term Solutions vs Short Term Solutions
The first debate involves the UNSC looking at long term solutions and short-term goals. While nations like the UK (United Kingdom), Belgium and the Dominican Republic calls for an immediate military invasion of DRC to eradicate the freedom fighters and seize the biological weapons through brute force, other nations like China calls for a balanced approach, calling for the UNSC to focus on long term solution.
China-focused on improving the infrastructure of the nation as well as better equipping the DRC army to tackle the conflict. “We have not built up the capability for the DRC to function as a whole. We need to build up the capacity of DRC to function as MONUSCO without MONUSCO”.
China felt that looking at short term solutions will not be effective as these freedom fighters will then move on surrounding nations like Angola, Zambia, etc. through the porous African borders.
Led by the Chinese, the issue of border security has been discussed on widely but faces strong opposition from narrow-minded western nations like the UK and Belgium. Such narrow mindedness has prevented the UNSC from reaching a consensus on this issue in open debate.
#2 Negotiation vs No negotiation
The difference in passive and active intervention has also been widely discussed in Council. While the UK, France, and the US favor a no negotiation tactic as it “violates UN laws” on “terrorist groups”. According to their imperialistic views, “terrorist groups must not be aided” to show that the UN is not “afraid of terrorists”.
China, on the other hand, calls for increased pressure on the freedom fighters and calls for negotiations with the freedom fighters to prevent further escalation of the crisis. This prevents further deaths caused by the crisis and will further stabilize the region. They plan to introduce improved infrastructure to treat the root cause of negotiations by improving the lives of citizens on the DRC.
#3 Prevention vs Cure
While China called for the prevention of the release of the Ebola-Containing Ecological Weapons and introduced solidifying DRC-Uganda borders as a long term measure, nations like Germany and UK assumed that the freedom fighters will release the Ebola virus and instead focused their debate on preventing the spread of Ebola virus through reducing the spread of animals and education.
Germany even claimed that the Ebola issue was not a big one as it is “unlikely that Ebola weapons are effective”, providing a dubious journal paper low on citation counts. They claimed that exterminating freedom fighters were the most serious threat, a claim that was unanimously disagreed upon in council.
The debate on the DRC-Uganda crisis continues as UNSC goes into private session. With the two camps in major disagreements over fundamental issues, it is unlikely that a favorable solution is to arrive soon. With each passing day of indecision, the DRC-Uganda Crisis will intensify. With debates unfocused and western nations fixating on their agendas, this Crisis will continue unresolved for a long time to come.
Comments
Post a Comment