Peacekeepers in Chad should have option to use force to protect innocent refugees

I AM writing in response to Antony Barnwell’s short letter (‘Peace enforcers’, July 1) and in defence of Ann Cahill and media commentators like her.

While I agree with Mr Barnwell that there are certain parts of Chad where there is relatively little or no peace to be kept, I do not think this should be a justification for the international community (including the EU) to evade its responsibility to protect civilians in danger of persecution.

Having recently travelled to Chad, I visited camps inhabited by more than 250,000 Darfuri refugees along the Chad/Sudanese border who have fled their own country in fear of atrocities being perpetrated by the Sudanese government.

As the UN and EU cannot be expected to mount a peacekeeping operation where there is no peace to be kept, chapter seven of the UN charter envisages the UN will, in certain circumstances, affirmatively attempt to make peace.

The EUFOR mission to Chad does have a chapter seven UN mandate to take all necessary measures, within its capabilities and its area of operation in eastern Chad and the north-eastern Central African Republic, to fulfil the following functions:

1. To contribute to protecting civilians in danger, particularly refugees and displaced persons.

2. To facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and the free movement of humanitarian personnel by helping to improve security in the area of operations.

3. To contribute to protecting UN personnel, facilities, installations and equipment and to ensuring the security and freedom of movement of its staff and UN and associated personnel.

EUFOR’s mandate allows this mission to work as a deterrent and to use force when necessary, especially to prevent attacks on civilians, camps and villages, humanitarian workers or UN police officers, as well as in self-defence.

Would Mr Barnwell prefer that EUFOR troops stand idly by while a woman out to get firewood is raped outside a refugee camp?

Would he prefer that an EU peacekeeper — who is brave enough in the first instance to offer to work in such an insecure zone — would then not have the tools to protect himself against a rebel onslaught?

I believe EU and UN peacekeepers should not only be empowered to defend themselves against attacks, but should also be authorised to use force to protect the lives of innocent refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP).

However, EUFOR’s mandate in no way permits it to get involved in internal disputes between the warring factions there. EUFOR representatives have said repeatedly they are not present to engage or take sides in a combative role between Chadian government forces or rebel groups. They simply have the humanitarian objective of protecting refugees, IDPs and humanitarian personnel and should be allowed to do so with a bolstered role to act as a deterrent.

Colm Burke MEP

20 Washington Street

Cork