"Finally, I am encouraged to note that the Security Council issued a statement today expressing its concern about the massive humanitarian crisis in Darfur and calling on all parties to the conflict to protect civilians and reach a ceasefire"
About this Quote
“Finally” is doing the heavy lifting here: a single adverb turned into an indictment. Jan Egeland, a career humanitarian insider, isn’t celebrating diplomatic process so much as signaling how late the world is to the emergency. In the language of the UN, encouragement is often a proxy for frustration; it’s what you say when you can’t say “why did it take you this long?” on the record.
The sentence is built around soft power. The Security Council “issued a statement,” not a resolution; it “express[ed] concern,” not consequences. That phrasing matters because it reveals the institutional limits Egeland is navigating: Darfur wasn’t suffering from a lack of information, but from a surplus of political caution. The quote’s intent is to convert symbolic attention into operational change, to take a headline and turn it into protection on the ground.
Egeland also threads an accusation through neutrality. “All parties to the conflict” is the standard diplomatic blanket, a way to avoid naming perpetrators while still insisting that civilians be protected. The subtext is that civilians are being targeted, and that the international community has been watching, parsing language, debating mandates, while people die.
Context is everything: mid-2000s Darfur, when “never again” rhetoric collided with veto politics, sovereignty claims, and risk-averse peacekeeping. Egeland’s careful optimism is strategic, meant to keep doors open. It’s also a moral nudge: if the Council can finally speak, it can be pressed to act.
The sentence is built around soft power. The Security Council “issued a statement,” not a resolution; it “express[ed] concern,” not consequences. That phrasing matters because it reveals the institutional limits Egeland is navigating: Darfur wasn’t suffering from a lack of information, but from a surplus of political caution. The quote’s intent is to convert symbolic attention into operational change, to take a headline and turn it into protection on the ground.
Egeland also threads an accusation through neutrality. “All parties to the conflict” is the standard diplomatic blanket, a way to avoid naming perpetrators while still insisting that civilians be protected. The subtext is that civilians are being targeted, and that the international community has been watching, parsing language, debating mandates, while people die.
Context is everything: mid-2000s Darfur, when “never again” rhetoric collided with veto politics, sovereignty claims, and risk-averse peacekeeping. Egeland’s careful optimism is strategic, meant to keep doors open. It’s also a moral nudge: if the Council can finally speak, it can be pressed to act.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Jan
Add to List

