On March 23, when the coronavirus began to take over the world, Antόnio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, issued a call for a global ceasefire. He declared that "the wrath of the virus shows the folly of war." His laudable ambition, echoed by Pope Francis and others, was to ensure a respite for those countries and regions that had been so weakened by violence and conflict that they would be particularly vulnerable to the epidemic. To a general amazement, many armed groups around the world seemed to listen.
By early April, fighters in 12 countries had heeded Mr Guterres' call and laid down their arms, at least temporarily. According to some charges, four other companies followed. The first batch included groups involved in some of the most enduring and intractable conflicts in the world. Colombia's National Liberation Army (ELN), which has been trying to "liberate" the country for 50 years or so, declared a ceasefire on March 30. So did the New People's Army in the Philippines, a communist guerrilla group that has been in the field since 1969. A faction of the Northern Sudan People's Liberation Army (itself separated from the SPLA) has called for a unilateral ceasefire, at least in three of the theaters Its numerous operations.
Hopes were raised that these armed groups, which had exhausted them after decades of fighting, were taking advantage of the United Nations' call for a ceasefire to end its revolutionary and fruitless struggles. They all indicated that they were open to talks with the governments they were fighting. Could some good come from this catastrophic epidemic?
Unfortunately, this hope is quickly declining. Unless some urgent action is taken, they may completely disappear. On April 30, both ELN and NPA announced that they had not extended the ceasefire and would return to violence. The two groups claimed that their governments did not appear willing to negotiate. The Philippine government, for its part, has argued that the New People's Army violated an early ceasefire and that peace talks were futile after militants killed two soldiers on March 27. Thus the parties return to what they know best - a long and discouraging dead end.
"It was very disappointing," says Richard Joan, a UN observer for the International Crisis Group, a conflict-prevention organization based in New York. He has lost all of the early momentum of peace generated by the original Guterres invitation, at least in part because of five weeks of hesitation in the UN Security Council. A swift and decisive decision is needed to support the words of the Secretary-General. Instead there was silence. "There was an opportunity for a ceasefire," says Gowan.
The problem is the growing dispute between China and America, two of the five permanent members of the Security Council, over the origin of the coronavirus and the role of the World Health Organization. When drafting a cease-fire resolution, a process organized by France, it was agreed that relatively fast formulation would be made on some strong clauses requiring a full 90-day pause in hostilities in conflict-torn countries. But America and China are still at odds, as they have been for weeks, about how to refer to the World Health Organization in the preamble to the resolution.
The Chinese insist that the organization is getting the name checked; America does not want it to be mentioned at all. The Trump administration has accused the World Health Organization of mishandling the crisis, in particular in collusion with the government in Beijing to cover up China's role in spreading the virus in the first place. The conflict over the World Health Organization's mention of the resolution thus became a proxy battle between the two powers over who should bear most of the responsibility for causing the epidemic.
Many lives may be lost in the Sino-American blame game. Doubting the effectiveness of UN resolutions on the ground is understandable. But judging by responding to Mr. Guterres’s original words, in this case the decision could be subordinate. In disputes where the two sides are already looking for an opportunity to speak, a push from the United Nations at the right time may make a difference. Yemen, the Great Prize for Peacemakers, is an example: the Saudi-led coalition announced a two-week ceasefire on April 9, Houthi rebels also announced their willingness to work with the United Nations on a ceasefire and an end to the war; fighting has resumed ever since.
Many conflict-torn countries that could benefit more have some of the world's weakest healthcare systems and are therefore less prepared to fight coronavirus. The newest country in the world, South Sudan (another country in which an armed group recently declared a ceasefire), had, at the last count, only four fans of its roughly 12 million people.
Visit all global updates for more
Post a Comment
Post a Comment