Why is this the US's problem?
Why isnt the African Union actually doing something,instead of talking? Its interesting that nobody in Europe or Africa will do anything,but if we do,we are "meddling"
actually it is not the U.S problem, rather the U.N. But the overall world should be help there.
The"overal world" has never acted together for anything.
The U.N. is a reflection of the least common virtue of its member states. Not much to contemplate there.
In view of all the worldwide criticism of the U.S.ntervention to overthrow an obviously aggressive and murderous regime in Iraq, on what basis can anyone seriously suggest that "someone ought to do something about Sudan"?
The relative silence of the European advocates of an International Criminal Court, as well as the supine inaction of the court itself tell the alert observer all that is needed to fully understand the supreme hypocrisy of 'old Europe'.
If you want see what failure looks like, look no further. Come see the building in NYCity called the UN. They ought to turn it into a hotel or something more useful.
The"overal world" has never acted together for anything.
I know, we all know it.
The UN should be finally to reform, 59 years after the WWII, there have the winner countries still the right to vote. That's weird.
Perhaps the UN should "be reformed". But how to do it? Aesops mice proposed to but a bell around the cat's neck for warning, but none of the mice volunteered to do the job.
There are proposals under study for the reconstitution of the Security Council, giving greater representation to Germany, Japan, India and perhaps Nigeria or Brazil. Some change of this sort seems likely in the next ten years or so. However the main problem is that the UN itself has produced a largely corrupt and wasteful bureaucracy, and, more seriously, has proven itself largely ineffective in dealing with serious issues. Ths is the result of both internal problems and the lack of common purpose among its members.
However the main problem is that the UN itself has produced a largely corrupt and wasteful bureaucracy...
When a corrupct bureaucracy is such a serious problem, it should be such a big problem some countries (and big cities) as well. :wink:
But it seems - like usual, when humans are invilved - some sit in a glasshouse and throw stones as well.
Btw: does anyone have figures, how many UN civil servants and employees are of US-nationality? :wink:
Btw: does anyone have figures, how many UN civil servants and employees are of US-nationality?
Does that matter? If so, why? Corruption is corruption no matter participates in it.
I should note that since the UN's headquarters is in the US it is to be expected that the preponderance of low level positions would be filled by people living there. I would imagine that those world wide functions, not just related to the UN, that are stationed in Europe are predominantly filled by Europeans. I would be surprised if they were not.
While the nations of the world meet and discuss people continue to die. Does anyone care. I doubt it. Is the UN worth the powder to blow it up? I wonder? When has the UN answered the call in time of crisis?
U.S. Drafts Resolution On Sudan Sanctions
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 9, 2004; Page A21
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 8 -- The United States distributed a draft U.N. resolution Wednesday that threatens consideration of sanctions on Sudan's oil industry if Khartoum fails to stem violence in the Darfur region of Sudan or blocks the deployment of thousands of African monitors.
The draft Security Council resolution, which the 15-nation council is to begin debating Thursday, also calls on U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to establish a commission to investigate and prosecute human rights violators and determine whether their crimes amount to genocide.
The U.S. initiative is designed to ratchet up political pressure on Khartoum to accept a U.N. proposal to expand a small African Union observer mission by creating a force of more than 3,000 African peacekeepers. The mandate of the new force is the subject of Nigerian-sponsored talks between Sudan and Darfur rebels in Abuja, Nigeria.
Senior Security Council ambassadors said the resolution is likely to face intense resistance, particularly from the council's strongest opponents of sanctions, including China and Pakistan, both of which import oil from Sudan. But even European governments, including Britain, believe that the U.S. resolution will have to be watered down to gain broad support in the council, according to a European diplomat. "I think the U.S. approach is what I would call stick-based rather than carrot-based," one council diplomat said. "We feel now is not the time for sanctions."
U.S. officials and human rights advocates charge that Sudanese-sponsored Arab militias have killed tens of thousands of black African civilians in Darfur over the past 18 months and forced more than 1 million from their homes. The U.S. draft expresses "grave concern" over Sudan's failure to "fully comply" with the council's demand that it crack down on the Arab militias.
Although the three-page text credits Khartoum with achieving a "limited improvement" in access for humanitarian aid workers in Darfur, it presents a harsh assessment of the government's commitment to end the suffering in Sudan. And it calls on Annan to brief the council within 30 days on Khartoum's compliance with the council's demands.
In addition, the draft resolution contains a threat of unspecified future sanctions against the government in Khartoum or individual Sudanese officials responsible for backing the militias.
Finally the US called it:
Genocide in Sudan
At last: Colin Powell uses the word the world's human rights bodies have been demanding as US toughens its stance on the slaughter in Sudan
The Bush administration declared for the first time yesterday that genocide was being committed in Darfur, blaming Arab militias and the Islamist government of Sudan for the atrocities. "Genocide may still be occurring," Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said.
"The situation on the ground must change and change quickly," he said. "There are too many tens of thousands of human beings who are at risk."
America's failure to halt the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 has haunted successive US administrations. Yesterday's declaration was not a commitment to intervene militarily to save lives in Sudan, leaving open the possibility that it was motivated as much by US presidential politics as humanitarian concerns.
Branding the atrocities genocide is important, however, as it carries legal and moral obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The genocide convention orders signatory states including the US and Britain to "prevent and punish" acts of genocide.
Questioned about the change in the American position last night on Channel 4 News, the Foreign Office minister, Chris Mullin, said: "It may well be genocide, and that is why we are supporting Colin Powell's call for the United Nations to investigate urgently. Whatever you call it, there is no doubt that grave crimes against humanity have been committed in Darfur."
Pressed on the genocide label, Mr Mullin said: "We ought not to get too bogged down in words. We shall be supporting Mr Powell's call for an urgent UN investigation. We want to see the toughest resolution possible. We have got to take the other members of the Security Council with us, please bear that in mind, but we will be in the forefront of the debate."
The Janjaweed militia, controlled by the Sudanese government, has been accused of killing 50,000 people in the 18 months that followed a rebellion by black African farmers in Darfur. More than one million people have been forced from their homes.
General Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "We concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility and genocide may still be occurring."
He acknowledged the responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions on the prevention of genocide, which "to us, at this time, it appears that Sudan has failed to do". Consequently, he said, the UN should fully investigate the killings in Darfur with a view to establishing accountability.
General Powell based his statement on a State Department report by officials who interviewed 1,136 Darfur refugees over a five-week period in Chad. The report revealed a "consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities committed against non-Arab villagers" from the western region of Sudan.
Mr Mullin was asked whether British troops could be deployed to the region. He said: "It is too early to say that yet. We have some British advisers there but it is too early to go down that road. I shall be in Sudan for most of next week, and obviously I shall have a clearer picture then."
Britain and the US hope that the UN Security Council, which is considering a US draft resolution threatening oil sanctions against the Sudanese government, will agree to proposals in the draft for such an international inquiry. Similar commissions were set up after the 1994 Rwanda genocide and the Yugoslav conflict and eventually led to war crimes tribunals.
The European Union has refrained from declaring genocide in Sudan, maintaining that it is for the UN to decide. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has described the Sudanese government's "scorched earth policy" as the world's greatest humanitarian disaster, but has not used the word genocide.
Aid agencies and rights groups expressed concern that the talks at the UN could stall at a time when there is a need for urgent action to resolve the humanitarian crisis. "It's good to see the US recognising the scale of the crisis but words are not enough," said an aid agency with humanitarian workers on the ground in Darfur.
The Sudanese deputy foreign minister, Najeib El-Kheir Abdel Wahab, said: "We don't think this kind of attitude can help the situation. We expect the international community to assist the [African Union peace] process that is taking place in Abuja and not put oil on the fire."
This is the world's failure. Everyone's. More than two decades of slaughter. No one. Including Powell and the US has the right to act surprised or offended. Every country on the planet has complicity here...directly or indirectly. Mock Horror and Theactrical "Surprise" will be the resort of the most guilty Dogs. Place this next to Man on The Moon, The Berlin Wall Fall and other historical achievements to get the full measure of mankind in the last half century.
Maybe there will be a good movement for Africa:
Blair's mission on Africa
Tony Blair yesterday proposed a 15,000-strong European Union battle force, including British troops, dedicated to intervening in African conflicts and deployable within 10 days of a political instruction. He said the force should be ready next year.
Mr Blair made the bold proposal just 24 hours after the Iraq Survey Group reported that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. The talk of battle plans underlined the fact that despite the controversy over Iraq, Mr Blair has not lost his fervour for human rights-driven military interventions.
The proposal formed part of a wider package to tackle the crisis across Africa, including generous debt and aid proposals designed to take the continent out of its cycle of poverty, disease and instability.
The EU brigade, capable of more rapid deployment than any other multinational force, would intervene with the sanction of the African Union or the UN. The intention is that it would hold the line until an AU or UN force could be assembled.
The force would be broken down into battle groups of 1,500 with bigger countries such as Britain, France, Germany and Poland supplying their own groups and smaller countries contributing to other groups.
Such rapid action in Sudan might have prevented the refugee crisis and killings in Darfur in the west of the country. A 3,000-strong AU force, largely Nigerian, is still weeks from deployment.
The prospect of British troops embarking on another foreign expedition was warily criticised by the Tories. Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, said: "It is unfortunate that when the government is disbanding regiments and getting rid of manpower and capabilities that it should impose another task on our already overstretched armed forces."
Donald Anderson, Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said in Morocco, where he will attend today's opening of parliament: "There are dangers because of the fear of raising old colonial hackles again. The best thing we can do is not to intervene as Europeans but to help train African Union forces to take the lead themselves."
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader who recently wrote to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, suggesting that the EU rapid response units should be sent to Africa, said: "These arrangements would allow for the kind of intervention we could all be in favour of. The tragedy is that they have not been in place for Darfur."
Mr Blair was speaking in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at the second session of the Commission for Africa, which is preparing a comprehensive plan on how the G8 industrialised countries and the EU can help Africa next year, which Mr Blair described as the year of decision for Africa.
His speech echoed his original clarion call for humanitarian intervention which he set out in Chicago in 1999.
Downing Street officials are seeking to produce an updated version of the Chicago principles to take into account the post-Iraq world.
Mr Blair, speaking to a hall of leading African politicians and economists, described the drive to restore hope for Africa as "one noble cause worth fighting for" in an era of cynicism and disengagement from the political process.
Explaining his plan for EU battle groups dedicated to the continent, he said: "There will be times when Africa cannot stop a conflict on its own. Then the rest of the interna tional community must be there to help. That is why I want Africa to be the top priority for the EU's new rapidly deployable battle groups and to get them operational initially as soon as possible in 2005."
He added: "These groups would allow the EU to respond to a crisis in Africa in 10 days."
No 10 said the idea had won support inside the EU, where as many as seven battle groups are being formed.
Mr Blair also revealed that Britain will train, directly or indirectly, 20,000 African troops over the next five years.
He said the commission would report in March - ahead of the UK-hosted G8 summit in June. After publication "the time for excuses will be over. The world inside Africa and outside will know just what the problems are, but also the solutions."
The report is likely to call for multilateral debt to be written off, EU food subsidies to end and the international aid budget to double. Africa will be asked to intensify peer group review to stamp out corrup-tion and human rights abuses. Rich countries will be told to stop their citizens laundering money, selling arms and steal ing resources in Africa.
Mr Blair said a recovery for Africa was necessary to keep Europe secure. "We know that poverty and instability lead to weak states which can be havens for terrorists and other criminals," he said.
His visit to one of the world's poorest countries coincided with a strong attack on Europe's aid strategy from the chancellor, Gordon Brown.
Mr Brown said Brussels should spend an extra 1bn (£691m) a year on low-income countries in Africa and Asia, calling it "nonsensical" that the European commission was focusing its financial assistance on relatively rich countries in the Balkans.
The EU aid commissioner, Poul Nielsen, yesterday in Brussels attacked Mr Brown's plans for an international finance facility intended to double aid by $100bn a year by issuing bonds in the capital markets using donor countries' long term funding commitments as collateral. He branded the idea Enron accounting.
But Bob Geldof, one of the 17 members of the Commission for Africa, hit back. He said the IFF proposal was "elegant, timely, simple and necessary".
Neighbouring country of Sudan, Uganda:
Uganda optimistic for peace, cites rebel flight