According to The Associated Press, some 113 civilians have been killed in heavy fighting between Ethiopian troops and ICU fighters over the last three days, though that number was increased by 60 today according to the BBC. In all, some 321,000 Somalis have fled the fighting creating the largest refugee crisis in the country since 1991.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has suggested in a recent report that a ‘coalition of the willing’ (how I despise that term) may ultimately be needed to enforce the peace in Somalia…

“In a report to the Security Council made available on Friday, Ban called on the 15-nation body to consider in June whether a conventional U.N. peacekeeping force could succeed in the lawless East African country or something more was needed.

Ban said a U.N. force might work if fighting stopped in south-central Somalia and all or most armed groups and communities signed up to an agreement allowing for outside monitoring.

In that case, U.N. involvement “would primarily focus on technical assistance to the reconciliation efforts, as well as on reconstruction and development, supported by an appropriate United Nations peacekeeping presence,” he said.

But if the political process fails and violence gets worse, “alternative options, including peace enforcement, should be considered,” he said.

“An operation, mandated by the United Nations, mounted by and composed of a coalition of the willing with the appropriate capabilities to deal with the high paramilitary threat, would be better suited” to such a situation.

The term “coalition of the willing” refers to a group of like-minded countries that decide to take action in a trouble spot but are not under U.N. control.�?

And under whose control do you think that might be if the UN is unable to secure the peace through the suggestion of alternative means? Well, looking at the members of the Security Council, who has been supporting the Ethiopians in their military efforts in Somalia?

This timely report, given the recent creation of AFRICOM, is transparent in my opinion. The fact that the Secretary General of the United Nations would use the same terminology as the President of the United States with regards to a ‘coalition of the willing’ is also rather interesting. What is even more telling is that the report includes the suggestion of the use of independent forces in a brief that clearly sets very restrictive parameters with regards to a purely UN controlled intervention. The last I checked, the mandate of the United Nations wasn’t to promote the use of independent force by its members in a foreign conflict while attempting to make headway as an organization that is supposed to represent more than just the wanton needs of certain members of the Security Council. The inclusion of such language is little more than context for ensuring the legitimacy of independent military action in the future, and that should be a grave cause for concern.

Examining the Secretary General’s position regarding Somalia is interesting it that no such consideration has been given the UN’s inability to impact the genocide occurring in Darfur.

In July of last year the UN passed Resolution 1706, which called for 22,500 UN peacekeepers to help bolster the 7,000 massively under funded African Union troops that had been operating in the region to little effect. The resolution was, of course, roundly rejected by the Sudanese government. Then, in September, when the AU mandate was set to run out, the United States let slip that the AU might extend its mission, which it officially did on October 2nd because of the failure to implement Resolution 1706.

The UN’s current position regarding the situation in Darfur is that African nations should ultimately take the lead under the UN umbrella to help deter the Janjiweed militias. But not surprisingly, despite the fact that an estimated 450,000 people have lost their lives, with a further 2.5 million people displaced, there has been no mention of a ‘coalition of the willing’ to solve the problem.

The reason?

One of the permanent Security Council members to abstain from the Resolution 1706 vote was China, who maintains mutually beneficial agreements with the government in Khartoum with regards to the exportation of oil (China purchases two thirds of Sudan’s oil exports) and the importation of arms (which since 1995 have included ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft). The Chinese have made attempts to soften Khartoum’s position on UN involvement in the crisis, largely empty overtures to placate those that have condemned them for their continued involvement with Khartoum.

The result? There will be no ‘coalition of the willing’ coming to the rescue of those that have, in the millions, flooded refugee camps along the Chadian border, nor would the Secretary General dream of even mentioning it.

Welcome to the world we live in.