Walter
France mobilizes Dafur troops
Step in the right direction. Now let's see if they are willing to put the boots on the ground in sufficient numbers to do some good.
Sorry if I came on too strong about the EU. However, my point is that much of the strife on the African continent can be laid at the feet of the European nations that colonized and raped Africa. Therefore IMO it is those nations responsibility, no duty, to be deeply involved in it's remediation. With boots on the ground if need be and not after thousands have died.
au1929 wrote:
France mobilizes Dafur troops
Step in the right direction.
absolutely. Even if,of course, any economy interest are be behind it.
But:
Sudan rejects U.N. sanctions threat
Quote:The U.N. Security Council has threatened to clamp sanctions on Sudan in 30 days if it does not disarm and prosecute marauding militia in Darfur, under a U.S.-drafted resolution.
Sudan rejected the move as "misguided."
The 13-0 vote, with abstentions from China and Pakistan, came after the United States deleted the provocative word "sanctions" from the resolution and substituted a reference to a provision in the U.N. charter that describes various forms of sanctions.
No specific measures were identified to punish the Sudanese government. Friday's resolution also placed a weapons embargo on armed groups in Darfur.
Whether sanctions ever will be imposed is questionable. The United States and its European allies in the Security Council faced considerable opposition on the resolution and had to reword the sanctions threat to attract enough votes.
However, many humanitarian organisations believe the resolution is far too mild.
"The last thing we wanted to do was lay the groundwork for sanctions," U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said. "But the government of Sudan has left us no choice."
"It has done the unthinkable. It has fostered an armed attack on its own civilian population. It has created a humanitarian disaster," he said.
The measure, co-sponsored by Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Chile and Romania, demands that the Sudanese government disarm and prosecute within 30 days militia known as Janjaweed, or the Security Council would consider punitive measures.
At least 30,000 people have died and thousands have been raped in Darfur. Some 1 million villagers have been driven into barren camps and 2 million need food and medicine in what the United Nations calls the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
In Bredjing, Chad on Friday, Darfur refugees poured over the border, waiting patiently to receive sacks of rice, tins of cooking oil and green plastic sheets from aid groups.
The resolution tells the United Nations to plan for peacekeepers, but none are expected soon. The resolution also seeks to augment African Union monitors, who have reported more rapes and abuses in Darfur in the last few weeks.
KHARTOUM SAYS "NO"
Sudan's Information Minister Al-Zahawi Ibrahim Malik rejected what he called the Security Council's "misguided resolution."
Malik said the Security Council had intentionally ignored efforts by Khartoum, the African Union and the Arab League to resolve the crisis. He blamed the crisis on African groups who rebelled last year against Khartoum's policies.
That says Reuters
and ...
CNN wrote:Sudanese Minister of the Interior, Abdul Rahim, told CNN his country objected to the resolution but could not reject it.
well?
Sudan said Saturday that it will accept the UN resolution threatening sanctions if the country does not restore security to the Dafur region, backing down from its previous refusal. Osman Al Said, Sudan's ambassador to the African Union, said that while Sudan is not pleased with the resolution, without any other options and fearful of action taken against Sudan itself, it will attempt to comply.
Quote:
Sudan Says It Accepts U.N. Resolution on Darfur
Source
Walter Hinteler wrote:Sudan said Saturday that it will accept the UN resolution
But they said now on Sunday the will be accept only 90 days.
Latest: : UN human rights team finds mass graves in Ivory Coast.
There are now the UN ..
How can I describe the UN actions. They treat the symptoms but never effect a cure. Supplying aid after thousands are killed and millions are threatened with starvation and disease is of cource noble. But correcting the root cause and effecting the outcome is apparently beyond their ability.
He**, au, when do you just read once, only one time, what the UN is, who are the mebers of the Un and how it works?
Walter
I know what the UN is and I know how it works and IMO it is not what it was hoped to be or should be. It was not supposed to be an organization that picks up the pieces after they break but one that stops them from breaking. That is what I was always lead to believe. Was I wrong?
Tell it its members, especially those in the Security Council: the USA, UK, Russia, China, France ...
Sanctions on Sudan have little chance of working
DarfurPARIS The rainy season has come to Darfur in western Sudan. And for a million uprooted Sudanese, the rains mean more agony. They have been forced from their villages by marauding militias that have killed more than 30,000 of their people, raped thousands of women, torched their homes and slaughtered their livestock. Khartoum has been unable or unwilling to disarm the militias. Two million Sudanese need food and medicine..
At the urging of the United States, Britain and the European Union, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution Friday threatening sanctions, albeit in foggy language. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, told reporters that "UN speak" had to be used to appease countries that objected to the word "sanctions.".
The skittish vocabulary speaks volumes, however. Political will for sanctions against Sudan is lukewarm at best. And a lack of political will has persistently been the downfall of sanctions. China and Pakistan abstained from the vote Friday. Egypt, which shares a crucial 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) border with Sudan, has warned against sanctions, saying they "will damage the situation." The Arab League, wary of Western interference in another oil-producing Arab state, agrees with Egypt..
The United States and Britain could push sanctions through anyway. But at what cost?.
Sanctions are often considered a measure short of war, but they require more cohesion than military force does. Cooperation must be virtually unanimous, seamless and unyielding. The political will to persevere must be energetic and full. And the risks and costs to the countries that will pick up the pieces downstream are far greater than usually imagined..
Just as the cold war ended, sanctions were imposed against Iraq with exceptional unanimity. They probably stymied Saddam Hussein's plans for weapons of mass destruction. But over 13 long years, support for them degenerated. Stories of soaring infant mortality rates caused offense worldwide, and business was hungry to start trading in Iraq's rich resources again..
In fact, sanctions tend to restructure societies in the most detrimental ways and their effects linger well after the leaders they sought to punish have been deposed. In Iraq, they encouraged Saddam to reward tribal leaders with bribes and to let vast smuggling networks develop..
Sanctions are usually used against corrupt, authoritarian states in the third world, like Sudan, where societies are weak. When declared, they sound like strong action to publics at home in America or Europe who are indignant over a situation abroad that they will see reported on television for a few months. But sanctions are rarely applied rigorously over time..
Meanwhile, they move business underground, making the black market even more important in countries where government officials already thrive on under-the-table dealings. Sanctions are the lifeblood of shady networks of gun runners and drug traffickers. By creating new needs, they open up new opportunities for a country's most nefarious elements..
In Haiti, sanctions may have reinforced what Senator John Kerry in 1993 called "a partnership made in hell, in cocaine, and in dollars between the Colombian cartels and the Haitian military," solidifying Haiti's role as a conduit for drugs to the United States and hobbling Haitian democracy, which the sanctions were meant to restore..
South Africa's apartheid-era government reacted to the arms embargo by bolstering its own arms industry, which sold weapons to all takers. As well as ties with unsavory characters, however, the arms industry also created employment. Post-apartheid South Africa could ill afford to purge the industry and all of its jobs. It promised not to trade to war zones, but need won out. Many leading South African arms recipients from 1996 to 1998 were countries in conflict, including Colombia, Pakistan and Algeria..
Sanctions against Sudan would not be as sweeping as the ones that were imposed on Iraq; sanctions today are better targeted in order to avoid hurting so many civilians. But that doesn't mean they work any better as a way of putting pressure on a regime. What it does mean is that they require even more cooperation and political will..
Sudan, Africa's largest country, is one-quarter the size of the United States, and its neighborhood is notoriously tough to supervise. Sudan borders nine countries, many even poorer than itself. Sanctions have been tried against many of them, only to fail. If the United States, the United Nations and the European Union rush to sanction Sudan without a unanimous coalition of willing partners - which they don't have now - they will set the scene not only for another sanctions failure, but also for new, even more difficult and expensive problems in the long term..
Tracy McNicoll, a reporter for Newsweek in Paris, recently completed a master's degree in politics at McGill University, Montreal, on the subject of sanctions and peace-building.
Perhaps the International Criminal Court will file a complaint against the recalcitrant members of the Sudan government. Sudan, of course, can stop any ICC intervention merely by taking legal process itself. However, such an action could be an embarassment for them. As the proponents of the ICC have so often claimed this is one of the "beneficial" elements of this ill - conceived and worse directed treaty and organization.
In fact the ICC was merely a fradulent attempt to constrain the U.S. government and make it subject to the "legal judgements" of our European "allies". The utter inaction of the ICC with respect to Sudan and other like issues proves the cynical intent of its proponents.
Well, George, back again ... and again back to your favourite pet subject
:wink:
Walter,
It's true - but one of two or three favorites.
Hiwever, the point stands. How do you explain the inaction of the ICC and its member states?
" 2 million Sudanese have failed to maintain existence, and the death toll is rising."
The rest of the civilized world "have failed to maintain" sanity and humane concern for Sudan.
Call in The Mighty UN? After ignoring this situation for over a decade? After the Oil-for-Food-Scandal in Iraq? (now being totally suppressed...big violators include Germany,France,Russia and others.) By the way, let this cast of characters take care of post-war Iraq? Hilarious!
By all means! Call in the UN? All the above, China included ,have shamefully "looked the other way" and this dreadful horror is going on right this second... for oil.
Let John Kerry solve all this?.........My sides!
G'Head! Tell another one.
georgeob1 wrote: How do you explain the inaction of the ICC and its member states?
a) the ICC never does take action itself (courts here don't as well: we have prosecution offices and the police, who works as 'aids' to to the prosecution).
b) the Statute of Rome/Statute of the ICC explains, who can do what
What do you mean by "member states of the ICC"? Are US-citizens members of the courts?