Sudan's army says rebels ambushed U.N.-AU peacekeepers

This brief article addresses a recent ambush of UN and African Union peacekeeping troops by rebel forces in Sudan. The area where the attack took place has traditionally been controlled by rebel forces but this represents the first incursion into the area in a long time. Army officials in Sudan have denied that the incursions were serious and claim that (by and large) UN forces continue to control the area. Representatives of the movement disagree, claiming that they have always controlled the area. They also deny they were involved in the recent raid. UN forces were not available for comment on claims that they willing gave up their supplies.

This relates to the reading that we did tonight concerning the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Bellamy claims that one of the two reasons that humanitarian intervention may or may not be done is the perception that it is imperialism by another name. This is the idea that intervention is done only out of the self-interest of the country intervening and that there is no actual humanitarian concern involved. Assuming that the accusations of corruption among UN and AU peacekeeping forces have some validity, there is something to be said for this argument. Even if these accusations aren't valid, the fact that they are being suggested helps to create suspicion and fear among the international community, which could still change the norm dealing with the perception of humanitarian intervention. This angle is unique because it deals with the execution of humanitarian intervention, not how it is perceived on the world stage.