of course not, because nobody should answered.
Well, I thought that it would also be interesting for people to go to the HRW homepage, so they'll immediate see other things going on around the world. Nonetheless, thanks for posting the direct link Thok.
of course, but still is a direct link good.
That's why I also thanked you Thok :wink:
U.S. Congress declares 'genocide' in Sudan
Annan, Powell urge Sudanese government to disarm militias
Friday, July 23, 2004 Posted: 1:07 PM EDT (1707 GMT)
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.S. Congress declared that the killings of tens of thousands of black civilians by Arab militias in Sudan's Darfur region amount to "genocide," while U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that Khartoum must act quickly to disarm Arab militias or face U.N. sanctions.
The House of Representatives and Senate unanimously passed resolutions Thursday night urging U.S. President George W. Bush, likewise, to call the situation in Sudan "by its rightful name -- genocide."
The measures also called for the Bush administration work to with the international community to stop the atrocities in the region the size of France, where pro-government militias called Janjaweed have killed up to 30,000 people, most of them black Africans, and driven over 1 million from their homes in the 15-month conflict.
But U.N. and Bush administration officials so far have declined to label the killings a genocide.
When you look at my quote, au, you can perhaps notice that I didn't mention the Congress but the White House, the African Union ....
True as the article stated Bush did not call it what it is genocide. Why, I can only offer an opinion. He knows full well that the EU, UN and the rest would not go along because it meant they would have to take some action. Since he is still in hope of getting help from several of these nations in Iraq and rather than roil the waters he went along.. Perhaps he has finally learned not to fight windmills. Nah.
In any event IMO had Bush could have found any of those nations to go along he IMO would have said the fateful word Genocide.
Again. Only an opinion.
Sudan is a large country - the largest in Africa. It is not accessible from the sea, and the transport infrastructure required to support large-scale logistical movements does not exist. These and several other Realpolitik issues make intervention there unrealistic and unhelpful for any constructive purpose. In addition the U.S.is already heavily engaged in the Mid East.
The timidity of the European powers in this matter has far exceeded that of the Bush administration. Unlike them, the U.S. did not have the hubris to participate in a treaty establishing a criminal court empowered to deal with such matters and given universal jurisdiction by governments representing only about 30% of the world's people. With that in mind, one can add hypocrisy to the characterization of the European powers.
The Republicans control both houses of the Congress. It is unrealistic to suppose that the resolution noted above could have passed by such large margins without at least the complicity of the President. Walter's point does not hold in this case.
You may want to save this post when the world finally awakens to the over-a-decade long genocide going on in the Sudan perpetrated by Arab Muslims against Black African innocents in behalf of oil. The time is drawing nigh. So is the shame.
BUT it is not genocide Sayeth the UN,EU, Amnesty International and the rest.
Khartoum 'worsening Darfur crisis'
Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Posted: 1:30 AM EDT (0530 GMT)
KHARTOUM, Sudan -- Sudan's government is worsening the crisis in the embattled Darfur region by legitimizing militia groups and blocking international aid, Human Rights Watch says.
The United Nations also hit out again at the Sudanese government, saying fresh helicopter attacks in Darfur were worsening an already desperate humanitarian situation.
A Human Rights Watch report released Wednesday said armed government forces and Arab militias, backed by Khartoum, continued to attack men, rape women and steal livestock in the region.
"The Sudanese government insists that it is taking significant measures, but the continuing atrocities in Darfur prove that Khartoum's claims simply aren't credible," said Peter Takirambudde, executive director for Human Rights Watch's Africa Division.
"If the government were serious about wanting to protect civilians, it would welcome a greater international presence," he added.
Sudan's government however says it is taking action against the Janjaweed militia. Khartoum has less than three weeks to disarm the militants or face unspecified U.N. sanctions.
The United Nations describes the situation in Darfur, brought on by 18 months of internal conflict, as the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
Pro-government Arab militias have been waging a counterinsurgency campaign that has led to widespread destruction and the displacement of around 1 million people.
Aid agencies estimate about 2 million people are in urgent need of food and medical aid.
The 18-month conflict in Sudan began when black African factions in Darfur rose up against the Sudanese government, claiming discrimination in the distribution of scarce resources in the large, arid region.
Since then, government-backed Arab militias, have gone on a rampage, destroying villages, killing and raping.
As many as 30,000 people have been killed, and 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes.
Fighting is continuing between government forces, with the allied Janjaweed and the two rebel groups in Darfur -- the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement.
On Tuesday, the United Nations blamed helicopter gunship attacks and Janjaweed violence in South Darfur for more displacement. (Full story)
Under a joint plan agreed with the United Nations, Sudan said it would establish safe areas for displaced refugees and halt military operations in those regions.
The U.N. Security Council gave Sudan an August 30 deadline to disarm the militias.
A July 30 resolution also demanded Khartoum improve security, human rights and humanitarian assistance in Darfur.
Despite claims from Khartoum the situation was improving, Human Rights Watch said the government appeared to be backtracking on the timeline set out by the Security Council resolution.
The report said the government was incorporating the Janjaweed into police and other security forces.
"Incorporating the Janjaweed militias into the security services and then deploying them to protect civilian 'safe areas' is the height of absurdity," said Takirambudde.
"The Sudanese government needs to bring war criminals to justice, not recruit them into positions of responsibility."
Human Rights Watch also said an increased international presence on the ground is urgently needed to improve the protection of civilians, assess the government's actions and stabilize the region.
What I said yesterday, only that I added that The White House didn't call it genocide, too.
Yes Walter and President Bush also. Does that make it any more palatable?
To be fair, I don't think it is particularly important what we call what is happening in Sudan. I fault the EU and the principal European powers only for the hypocricy gap between their pretentions of moral superiority in attempting to force the ICC ( a most unrealistic and ineffective structure in my view) on an otherwise unwilling world, and their relatively realistic treatment of the Sudan matter. Their squirming over the semantical issue is clearly based on the perceptions of this gap. Beyond that both they and the United States are putting what pressure they can on Sudan to control the situation.
Sudan presents a very serious aspect of a larger problem of the growing confrontation between the Muslim world and the West. Though it is comforting for the Europeans to paint this as a result of U.S. support for Israel in the Mid East, the fact is that both the problems of Israel and of the disaffection of the Arab world are direct results of European duplicity during and after WWI, persecution and extermination during WWII, and European colonialism and exploitation since 1836 when the French first invaded North Africa in a more or less permanent way.
Just whispering reminding you, George, that Sudan never was French at all.
From 1899-1955 it was ruled by an Anglo-Egytian condonium, before that, it was under Mahdist regime (1884-98), from 1821-85 Sudan was part of the Ottoman Empire, we had the Fur sultans before that ...
Walter, I agree. The British condominium with Egypt began in the late 19th century when they forced themselves into the stock ownership of the Suez project, and later moved in with an Army to protect their canal. They never exercised real control over Sudan.
The fact remains though that, from Indonesia to (then) Malaya to Somalia and on to Morrocco, European colonialism started over a century ago, and, with the spoils of the Ottoman Empire divided between Britain and France (ref. Sykes-Piquot treaty) the great majority of the Moslems in the world lived under European rule from 1918 until the 1950s, and a large minority had been under European rule for well over a century.