TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Sudan Bombs Darfur; Kofi Annan was “deeply disturbed”

Sudan Bombs Darfur; Kofi Annan was “deeply disturbed”

Just how useless is this organization???
This is not a new situation and it's getting worse.
What the hell has to happen before somebody actually does something??

quote:

Sudan Bombs Darfur, Forcing Thousands to Flee-UN Fri Jan 28, 2:55 PM ET By Tsegaye Tadesse ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - The Sudanese air force bombed a town in western Sudan this week killing or wounding 100 people and forcing thousands to flee, a U.N. spokeswoman said on Friday. An African Union (AU) source said earlier that Sudanese officials had prevented AU monitors from investigating the death and damage caused by the aerial bombing. The attack violated a shaky cease-fire with rebels which AU observers are monitoring. U.N. spokeswoman Radhia Achouri quoted the AU as saying Sudan's air force had bombed the town of Shangil Tobaya, near el-Fasher, capital of North Darfur, on Wednesday. "(The African Union) said there are around 100 casualties. They are not talking about a specific death toll," she told Reuters in Cairo by telephone from Khartoum. United Nations (news - web sites) Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) was "deeply disturbed" by the attack, his spokesman Fred Eckhard said. "This is the latest in a series of grave cease-fire violations that have resulted in a large number of civilian casualties, the displacement of thousands of people, and severe access restrictions for relief workers," Eckhard said. "The secretary-general calls on the government of Sudan and the rebel movements in Darfur immediately to comply fully with their commitments under the cease-fire agreement and all relevant Security Council resolutions," Eckhard said. There have been close to 100 confirmed cease-fire violations since late last year. The African Union source, who declined to be named, said violence in Darfur seemed to be intensifying. SITUATION WORSENING "The Darfur situation is getting very serious. All AU reports indicate that the situation in Darfur has been worsening since the beginning of January," the source told Reuters at the organization's headquarters in Addis Ababa. "AU observers in Darfur were denied access to investigate the death and damage caused by aerial bombings," the source added. Sources in Sudan's aid community said on Thursday the government had bombed al-Malam village on the border between North and South Darfur, where the government says rebels killed dozens of people this week. The rebels deny the charges. European Union (news - web sites) foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he was shocked by reports of the bombing of another village, named Rahad Kabolong, in North Darfur, saying it was one of the worst violations of the cease-fire signed last April. He said the bombing ran counter to assurances he had received from Sudanese Vice-President Ali Osman Taha that Khartoum was committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. "The high representative condemns this attack in the strongest terms and reiterates that the evolution of EU-Sudan relations will depend on the actual delivery of the commitments made by the Government of Sudan, not only on its public statements," said a statement issued by Solana's spokeswoman. After years of tribal conflict over scarce resources in arid Darfur, two main rebel groups took up arms accusing Khartoum of neglect and of using Janjaweed militia to loot and burn non-Arab villages. Khartoum admits arming some militias to fight the rebels but denies any links to the Janjaweed, calling them outlaws. (Additional reporting by Tom Perry in Cairo)

This is what I've been saying all along, why doesn't the U.S. do something about this, regardless of the U.N.? The supposed humanitarian reasons we went into Iraq are far more relevant in Sudan right now. At the very least, we are a permanent Security Council member, so we do have some leverage as to what's on the agenda. If the argument in Iraq was freedom, democracy, mass graves, etc., let's prove that it was more than just rhetoric as an excuse to go into that particular country.

There's other cartoonists out there besides Cox & Forkum

Collectively speaking Sudan sucks and the response to it. It is so political what is going on its not even funny. They are essentially allowing them to do this to keep the peace process with the south going. Its fucking disgusting. The UN, the US, Europe, everyone is doing a shit job.

With that said, the UN definitely needs overhaul but politicizing Darfur is not the way to do it. Not only are your arguments weak, but focus the blame to heavily on one organization. Granted they SHOULD be doing something, but so should a lot of people and countries. The UN is its own handicap due to the inaction of the states that have the ability to act. Particularly the UNSC.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 This is what I've been saying all along, why doesn't the U.S. do something about this, regardless of the U.N.? The supposed humanitarian reasons we went into Iraq are far more relevant in Sudan right now. At the very least, we are a permanent Security Council member, so we do have some leverage as to what's on the agenda. If the argument in Iraq was freedom, democracy, mass graves, etc., let's prove that it was more than just rhetoric as an excuse to go into that particular country.

Amen to that.
I think the problem is, the States are just a 'bit' busy...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Amen to that. I think the problem is, the States are just a 'bit' busy...

There are plenty of diplomatic, economic and other avenues that could be harshly pressed rather than invading the country. There is a lot that could be done by the U.S. that would not involve the military that should be implemented in the case of genocide. One of the congressmen from my state was arrested for taking part in a protest outside the embassy in an attempt to make people aware of this issue. This came up in the debates and Bush agreed that everything possible should be done in the case of Darfur, so I think he could do much more, just as the U.N. should.

The below cartoon depicts American awareness of this issue pretty well I think, as it's not like we're giving it the same attention as many other issues with arguably less urgency:


I'm curious with the argument that the U.N. is useless; does this mean we should all act unilaterally and not have conversation in the international community or should we reform it?

Nevertheless, if informed people on the right & the left are truly, in fact, both in agreement that this issue demands serious international attention, I think we still have major differences in terms of means, but a major breakthrough in terms of sharing goals.

The issue here is that the UN is only ever going to be as strong as the nations that comprise it. When you've got the 5 permanent members of the Security Council each pulling in a different direction and subverting the UN when they wish to suit their own needs, the UN is necessarily going to be hand-tied in its effectiveness to deal with situations like this. If no nations volunteer to contribute to the UN's efforts to see these sorts of events stamped out, then there is little that the UN can do. Remember, the UN is, ultimately, just an empty, bureaucratic shell that dictates protocol to 200 odd nations - unless there is some inner momentum and some compromise reached between these nations towards some sort of action, nothing will get done. This is not the fault of the UN organisation itself, but of the apathy of the nations within it.

If the US - or any other nation - is sincere in its desire to see a UN intervention in Sudan, then they need to push for a resolution in the UNSC. Until a nation says, of their own volition, "enough!" then nothing will get done. If you live in a nation (such as my own) that is just standing by idly while this is occurring, then it's your own nation that you should be berating into action, not the UN. The point is that until a government somewhere decides to take a stand, the UN itself is impotent.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The issue here is that the UN is only ever going to be as strong as the nations that comprise it. When you've got the 5 permanent members of the Security Council each pulling in a different direction and subverting the UN when they wish to suit their own needs, the UN is necessarily going to be hand-tied in its effectiveness to deal with situations like this. If no nations volunteer to contribute to the UN's efforts to see these sorts of events stamped out, then there is little that the UN can do. Remember, the UN is, ultimately, just an empty, bureaucratic shell that dictates protocol to 200 odd nations - unless there is some inner momentum and some compromise reached between these nations towards some sort of action, nothing will get done. This is not the fault of the UN organisation itself, but of the apathy of the nations within it. If the US - or any other nation - is sincere in its desire to see a UN intervention in Sudan, then they need to push for a resolution in the UNSC. Until a nation says, of their own volition, "enough!" then nothing will get done. If you live in a nation (such as my own) that is just standing by idly while this is occurring, then it's your own nation that you should be berating into action, not the UN. The point is that until a government somewhere decides to take a stand, the UN itself is impotent.

Absolutely.
Another problem is the U.N. can't make a move because of they have to wade through their own protocols and make sure everybody on the counsel is in agreement.
Problem is they don't like to use force for fear of upsetting 'somebody'.
Seriously, can someone name an incident where the U.N. came in and took charge by force without having to show up after something drastic has already happened?
It's like putting the guards at a bank after the bank was already robbed.....several times....
I can see why the U.S. gave up on the U.N. with the Iraq situation because it was obvious to them that nothing was going to happen.

I like the idea of the U.N., but they need some guiding principals and morals and BACK IT THE FUCK UP WITH ACTION.
Action is what changes worlds, not legislation and pussy-footing around issues hopeing it will work itself out.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Absolutely. Another problem is the U.N. can't make a move because of they have to wade through their own protocols and make sure everybody on the counsel is in agreement. Problem is they don't like to use force for fear of upsetting 'somebody'. Seriously, can someone name an incident where the U.N. came in and took charge by force without having to show up after something drastic has already happened? It's like putting the guards at a bank after the bank was already robbed.....several times.... I can see why the U.S. gave up on the U.N. with the Iraq situation because it was obvious to them that nothing was going to happen. I like the idea of the U.N., but they need some guiding principals and morals and BACK IT THE FUCK UP WITH ACTION. Action is what changes worlds, not legislation and pussy-footing around issues hopeing it will work itself out.

In the case of Iraq, there was a unanimous decision to allow weapons inspectors to go into the country. Considering no WMDs were found and that was the case the Bush administration tried to lay out, it was obvious that the U.N. was not going to authorize war, and for good reason. The human rights angle was not pushed to the U.N.

I would say that the U.N. did a lot in the former Yugoslavia's civil war, as far as anyone could really do. They stepped into East Timor before any other body did. The problem with the U.N. is that it's a double-edged sword. one thing to keep in mind is that as part of its charter, the U.N. has a goal to avoid war, rather than seek it as an option. You can't have action taken unless every one of the permanent security council members agree, so it prevents action that would be both good and bad. I doubt that U.S. or Russia or China would really agree to give up this status though. That said, there are cases where war has been considered justified by the U.N. There are also many other avenes besides war that can be taken and should be taken first, along with the great services that are provided by UNICEF, for example.

Renegade is absolutely correct that the U.N. takes the action of its member states to work and therefore the overall body cannot be blamed if none of the individual states do nothing to press the issue. I really hope someone does something soon, I don't care who.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.