When the UN says so. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_re_af/nigeria_sudan_un_1 Nausea. These guys can't seem to get anything right, lately.
It turns out, this isn't exactly news. In These Times reported on this over half a year ago. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/genocide_in_sudan I'm wondering if it is a bribe, or if it is an ideological tug-of-war with the Bush adminsitration regarding the methods of prosecuting the crimes committed. Or perhaps it is Chinese influence in the region. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/21/darfur10050.htm Hopefully more news is coming soon.
Well, they shined spotlights on escaping Sarajavans during the war. That was helpful to Serb snipers.
Genocide is not genocide when we have an organization which consists to a large extent of representatives of all the thugs, dictators and immoral governments, and they get to make the decision about what is genocide. That is why the UN has no moral authority whatsoever. Would you have the local police ran by representatives of the neighborhood gangsters and organized criminals? Oh, wait...it often is... Bad example.
On January 27, the UN did release the following to the press. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13158&Cr=sudan&Cr1= "The report from the United Nations-appointed commission of inquiry into whether genocide has occurred in Sudan's war-torn Darfur region arrived today at UN Headquarters in New York." They did send the report to the Sudanese government for their review and comment, prior to publishing the report to the rest of the Security Council. The Sudanese claim the UN did not conclude that genocide had occurred or is occurring. The UN verified the Sudanese positioin is correct. The UN correctly pegged the Rwanda genocide. http://www.un.org/events/rwanda/ The US House of Representatives voted 422 with 12 abstentions and no dissenting votes to encourage the Bush administration to call the atrocities in Darfur by its rightful name: 'genocide'." It urges the Bush administration to consider "multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act". We see that the Chinese are investing aggressively in Sudan for their oil, and they sit on the UN Security Council. One must wonder what the fvck is going on?
Intervention in Sudan would fit the definition of a 'moral' war, I think. A war waged in order to stop gross unjustice which cannot otherwise be stopped, and waged armed with the means to stop it without making the situation worse.
U.N. Clears Sudan of Genocide in Darfur http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sudan_darfur
Re: U.N. Clears Sudan of Genocide in Darfur Another example of how western obfuscation causes the UN to be less effective than it could be. In this instance, it was the US and the UK that insisted the term "genocide" had a specific, weighted meaning in the parlance of UN reportage. Using the term in a report of this nature automatically triggers a series of actions that require countries like the UK and US to commit more than they are usually willing to commit to such disastrous scenarios as Darfur. Including, most telling of all, the introduction of the International Criminal Court into the equation, something which the US in particular is vehemently opposed to because it would mean their leaders are in danger of being held to account for things they do in the world. Which has clearly never been more inconvenient than under the present leadership. But hey - they still get to call it "genocide" because they don't operate within the constraints they insisted the UN must operate under. Still ,it's only Africa ... and we have our more pressing engagements elsewhere to think of first. So the UN is neutered and cannot call a spade a spade. For which, handily enough, pompous rightwingers can then condemn them all over again! It's a win-win for the mouthbreathers.
Re: U.N. Clears Sudan of Genocide in Darfur https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165726 Merge away, please.
Re: U.N. Clears Sudan of Genocide in Darfur I don't think this is a case of Western obfuscation, or a case of pompous rightwingers condemning the UN, yet again. We do know the following: - the Sudanese government and their agents have been killing, raping and pillaging in the Darfur region. - the killing is roughly along ethnic lines. Arabs killing blacks, but there are notable exceptions. - over 1,200,000 people in the Darfur are refugees, many fleeing into Chad. - at least 100,000 people have been killed, with probably double that number in immediate danger. Reports go as high as 400,000 killed, so far. - UN Security Council includes China, who has a veto, and who has significant investments in Sudan - using the term "genocide" will call into action the International Criminal Court, which Condi opposes on principle. - the UN has proven (or at least failed to disprove) that they are for sale. - the US House of Representatives have asked the Bush administration to use the term "genocide" and all the baggage associated with it, including unilateral military action, should the UN Security Council fail to adequately address the issue of genocide in Darfur. The US government and the UN are so far inactive in addressing this issue. The UN had an opportunity to show that they are capable of leadership in two areas where they have been successful in the past: relief work and peace keeping. They failed, and they failed completely on their own. Now let's see how the US government responds.
Newsflash! Sudan considers the UN report to be one-sided and of a political nature. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050201/wl_afp/sudanundarfurreax_050201174642 The UN has recommended the involvement of the ICC. The article does indicate that softening the language from "genocide" to "killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape, pillaging and forced displacement in Darfur." Bliar spoke out concluding the report to be consistent with their findings. Let's see what the US response is.
US confirms that there is genocide occurring in Darfur. Richard Boucher provides a statement in his daily briefing. The US response is to request the African Union to increase its activities in Darfur, and he blanches at refer the case of war crime and/or genocide to the International Criminal Court. Boucher makes the claim that the African Union is more experience in matters of handling genocide, and that Africans should solve African problems. http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/Feb/01-917817.html I don't know much about the African Union, but here is their website. Last update on Sudan on their site is mid-December. They are mediating a political solution. http://www.africa-union.org/DARFUR/homedar.htm The African Union has troops deployed in Rwanda, but does not acknowledge any sort of mediation or corrective action. http://www.rwanda.net/english/News/2005/news01312005b.htm The UN has set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and is in operation now. http://www.rwanda.net/english/News/2005/news01312005.htm Sounds like the Bush administration is calling it right, but taking no action. The US House did vote unanimously for resolution with the following action items: - US to lead an international effort to prevent genocide in Darfur - US to consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention - Impose targeted sanctions - Establish a resettlement and rehabilitation fund
Well, boy, the UN just needs to send some members of their Committee on Human Rights down there to Sudan and just clean things up. Fidel Castro comes to mind since Cuba is a member of that committee, IIRC, and he is currently very much in the news. I am sure that he would have a great deal of respect and power in the situation. China would also gladly send some folks down there to help. They have a good handle on human rights. Well, except for the women...but you can't get it right all the time. In short, the UN just needs to go in there like they did in Rwanda. And also like they did in Iraq when Saddam was killing all the Kurds and Usay was running all the rape rooms. The UN did a great job there!!!! Yeah, that's what the UN should do. Just do it like they know how.
The US State Department suggests sending in the African Union. The AU can only provide a token amount of troops from South Africa and Nigeria, certainly not enough to secure the region. We can rightfully say that the UN is missing the mark on Darfur. The UN's position is going to be tainted by the Chinese, not Castro. I think we can also conclude that the US is not stepping, largely motivated by Condi's distaste for the ICC. Basically, the State Department told the people of Darfur that they are on their own, in spite of the unanimous resolution from the US House. Seems like everyone is coming up short.
I like this first step. Try to get more local support for the region. I don't follow you here. What is Rice's distaste for the ICC? I'm not familiar with that. I'm not ready to leap to that conclusion yet. What I would like to think is happening is that the US is trying to more actively pressure others into taking an active role, rather than direct US action. (At least that is a lesson I would hope we have learned in the past 18 months.) If that doesn't work, or is not effective enough, then turn up the heat on the rest of the UN to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Summarily, if there is to be a silver lining to the Iraq cloud, (apart from the hope posed by the elections) I would hope that it would be that other nations would play a more active role in these kinds of situations because they now know that the US will not just sit back and watch a murderous dictator do their thing.
A National Review article outlines Rice's and Rumsfeld's distaste for the ICC, claiming that it is not tied to any democratic process. http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos200501200909.asp I hope we learned something. Although Bush was clearly rattling his sabre at Syria and Iran (#1 terrorist exporter, according to W.)
Here is a very good site on Sudan and the continuously unraveling situation in Darfur, as well as other parts of the country. http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/ Highlights from the website include: - clear delineation of the oil/gas concession holders - African Union has provided 1,000 troops (South African and Nigerian) - The African Union is not trusted by the general population, as they are considered pro-government. - the US is sticking with the proposal to have the African Union manage the prosecutions of the war criminals, rather than the ICC. - ICC is active in Congo and Uganda. AU is active in Rwanda, supported by the UN. - African Union says none of the parties in the Darfur genocide are playing ball with them - the Sudanese government is asking for the international community to support efforts aimed at reconstruction and development, to lift any economic and trade restrictions or sanctions, to write off all foreign debt, to initiate partnerships with Sudan and to give generously at a forthcoming donors' conference in Oslo, Norway. (They have no shortage of self-esteem.)