1
   

United nations, EU, where are you??

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 07:47 am
au1929 wrote:
Any discussion about the UN always leads to the same conclusion. The UN is by design on it's own is an ineffectual organization. That has the power of discussion but not of action.


Well, in addition to nimh's [rhetoric? :wink: ] question:

give the UN some more money - it's annual budget is just one quarter of New York City's! - , and perhaps that could help, too.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 10:32 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Any discussion about the UN always leads to the same conclusion. The UN is by design on it's own is an ineffectual organization. That has the power of discussion but not of action.


Well, in addition to nimh's [rhetoric? :wink: ] question:

give the UN some more money - it's annual budget is just one quarter of New York City's! - , and perhaps that could help, too.


Typical liberal answer..."throw more money at and hope that helps"
Why not try something really radical,reform the UN and remove all of the corrupt,dirty officials in the UN.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 11:19 am
Mysteryman, where did you get the idea from the UN is full of "corrupt, dirty officials"?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 11:48 am
Lets see...the names coming out in the oil for food scandal is a good start.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html

Then of course,there is the refugee sex scandal...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/7/193725.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/6/151901.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/2/191742.shtml
I can find more if you want.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 12:43 pm
Indifference of the EU and UN is explained very easily. First, the Sudanese Christians do not commit terror attacks outside Sudan and do not disturb people of foreign countries at home. Second, it is impossible to blame Israel, Jews and Zionists (or Serbs, Russians and other outsiders of the Western civilization) in the atrocities mentioned. Therefore, this topic is out of interest.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 01:50 pm
So, eh, Steissd et al., who's actually going to at least send a peacekeeping mission to Sudan? The US or the UN?

The UN.

But dont let that get in the way of any argument, please.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:01 pm
Note: "Egypt, India, Yemen, Norway, Germany and other states have expressed interest in contributing troops to the UN mission in Sudan"

Quote:
Politics-Sudan: Peacekeepers a 'Drop in the Ocean' - But Welcome Nonetheless

Inter Press Service (Johannesburg)
June 14, 2004

Moyiga Nduru
Johannesburg

Rebels in south Sudan have welcomed the United Nations' weekend decision to send a peacekeeping mission to the country to monitor agreements that would end Africa's longest running civil war.

But, they believe a more substantial UN presence is needed - and one with a stronger mandate to stand its ground in trouble spots. [..]

Under UN regulations, the activities of peacekeepers in Africa and elsewhere are often circumscribed by something known as a Chapter Six mandate. [..] The Chapter Six mandate may allow peacekeepers to use force to protect people who are in imminent danger, while a Chapter Seven mandate allows for a greater degree of military intervention.

"We need both Chapters Six and Seven. These will enable the UN troops to play a dual role of monitoring and enforcing the peace in Sudan," said Marial, who is based in the Zimbabwean capital of Harare. [..]

[H]opes of an enduring peace have now been raised - this after the SPLA and the Islamic regime in Khartoum signed several peace protocols in the Kenyan town of Naivasha last month, and earlier this year. [..]

The protocols laid the ground for the UN to endorse unanimously on Saturday (Jun. 12) the creation of a UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will now lead efforts to plan the size, structure and mandate of the operations.

"We want the UN peacekeepers to ensure the survival of the agreement. Maybe the Sudanese army, which appears unhappy about the peace process, may decide to seize power in Khartoum and say they don't recognise the Naivasha agreement," Jada Y, the chairman of the Sudanese community in South Africa, told IPS.

"This is the time when the role of the UN peacekeepers will become very, very crucial." [..]

Apart from overseeing the two-year withdrawal of most of the 193,000 Sudanese government soldiers from the south, the UN troops are also expected to help train the new 24,000-strong military that will include government and rebel soldiers. This force will be based in south Sudan.

All of this will be done in challenging conditions. "Since creation, there has never been any tarmac road in southern Sudan, an area the size of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi put together," SPLA leader John Garang said [..]

"The net enrolment rate in primary schools is only 20 percent, with about 80 percent of those (in school) having no benches to sit on...Only seven percent of the teachers are trained," Garang added.

"Besides, at least three out of every four adults are illiterate, and (only) one of every ten female adults is literate. The level of access to an improved water source is only 27 percent, and there is only one medical doctor for every 100,000 persons."

Egypt, India, Yemen, Norway, Germany and other states have expressed interest in contributing troops to the UN mission in Sudan where, military analysts estimate, 10,000 peacekeepers are needed. But, "Our feeling is that 10,000 troops will not be enough," said Marial. "It's just a drop in the ocean...We will encourage the United Nations to send more troops." [..]


Quote:
UN May Intervene in Sudan
Associated Press
June 17,2004

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Secretary-General Kofi Annan raised the possibility Thursday of international intervention to protect more than 1 million people threatened by fighting in the Darfur region of western Sudan. [..]

Fighting between Arab militias, believed to be backed by the government, and the black African population has killed thousands of people and forced more than 1 million to flee their homes. [..]

Last week, the Security Council adopted a resolution giving the United Nations a green light to start planning for a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Sudan.

At the moment, the peacekeepers are supposed to monitor an agreement, expected to be finalized shortly, that will formally end a 21-year civil war in southern Sudan, but their mission could be expanded to Darfur with council agreement. [..]

[UN] Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland had said that the number of people in acute need of food and medical help in Darfur has nearly doubled from 1.2 million to 2 million.

"We are rushing to get as much supplies on the ground before the rains come,'' Annan said Thursday. "We have also been putting pressure on the Sudanese government to allow humanitarian workers ... to be given free access to Darfur and allow supplies and equipment to come it. Things have improved but much more needs to be done.'' [..]
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:27 pm
Nimh
What I would have liked to have seen is Mr. Annon soliciting troops from member nation to be sent in as a fighting force, if need be. Sending humanitarian
supplies in while people are being slaughtered seems like a half measure. In addition I would also like to see the EU have some initiative.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:34 pm
nimh wrote:
So, eh, Steissd et al., who's actually going to at least send a peacekeeping mission to Sudan? The US or the UN?

The UN.

But dont let that get in the way of any argument, please.

Well, better late than never. It took more than 20 years and 2 million of victims to make UN do something. And I have strong doubts in efficiency of the UN intervention.
Palestinian tactics of attracting attention to their problems, both real and imaginative, by means of hijacking planes and passenger vessels outside the conflict area (they used to do such things in 60-80s) works better...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:35 pm
au1929 wrote:
Nimh
What I would have liked to have seen is Mr. Annon soliciting troops from member nation to be sent in as a fighting force, if need be. Sending humanitarian
supplies in while people are being slaughtered seems like a half measure. In addition I would also like to see the EU have some initiative.


Well, he's soliciting troops from member nations to be sent in as peace keepers, at least. Better than nothing. And Annan himself seems to be pushing for more than that. But whether that will be possible will depend on:

- the political approval of the countries that are on the Security Council
- the willingness of those countries to contribute troops for such a "fighting force".

I noticed the US wasnt among the countries mentioned as wanting to contribute troops. France, Britain, Holland werent either. Annan is doing his best - perhaps we should lobby our governments to step up to the plate. Instead of just scolding Annan from the sidelines.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:42 pm
au1929 wrote:
Nimh
What I would have liked to have seen is Mr. Annon soliciting troops from member nation to be sent in as a fighting force, if need be. Sending humanitarian
supplies in while people are being slaughtered seems like a half measure. In addition I would also like to see the EU have some initiative.



Quite impossible, since the UN charta doesn't allow such:
Quote:
The Charter of the United Nations gives the UN Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security. For this reason, the international community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize peacekeeping operations.
Source
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:43 pm
steissd wrote:
Well, better late than never. It took more than 20 years and 2 million of victims to make UN do something. And I have strong doubts in efficiency of the UN intervention.


Yes, and you're right to, and its a shame that it took so long.

Its just that when people lambast the UN from their armchairs I'd like them to realise that the UN - however imperfect, late and weak - is often still the only party that does go in. And that many of the times it ends up (too) weakly present, its because the Member States refuse to send sufficient troops or pay their part of the costs.

steissd wrote:
Palestinian tactics of attracting attention to their problems, both real and imaginative, by means of hijacking planes and passenger vessels outside the conflict area (they used to do such things in 60-80s) works better...


Yeah. You're right, and thats pretty damn sad. Spectacular(ly troubling) behaviour is rewarded in this world thats running from one fire to another.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:48 pm
I can guess another reason for reluctance of the countries mentioned to send troops. The UN peacekeeping rules make it impossible to hit the objective. If the ground forces troops are deployed in the Southern Sudan they will be completely inefficient, they will become just a living targets for the Sudanese military training. The only way to make the Muslim authorities to leave the Southern Christians alone is to bomb the hell out of North, to destroy all their military and economic infrastructure by means of aerial attacks, and to continue bombings until they surrender and submit to demands of the peacekeeping forces. But I am not sure that the Third World-dominated UN would ever sanction such a way of solving the problem...
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:51 pm
Although I do find the sex scandal in Western Africa disgusting, and the oil for food scandal far below what the UN stands for, is that enough to conclude the UN is full off these people? I am not convinced.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:55 pm
Walter
If as you say a fighting force is not allowed by UN charter. What then was Korea. I was under the impression it was a UN police action. In any even that IMO if the UN is to have any relevance in those situations is what is called for.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:55 pm
steissd wrote:
The only way to make the Muslim authorities to leave the Southern Christians alone is to bomb the hell out of North, to destroy all their military and economic infrastructure by means of aerial attacks, and to continue bombings until they surrender and submit to demands of the peacekeeping forces.


You forget: "...and just forget about civilian casualties". Rolling Eyes The UN is a peace-keeping force, and when they will follow your tactics, they will lose all their credibility, and they will betray their foundations. Of course, human lives are more worth than all this, but I do not even think such a violent solution is a solution.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 02:58 pm
It is not the first scandal of the kind. And not the last. UN is possessed by the Third World, majority of the countries there being ruled by non-democratic and corrupt regimes. And their representatives in the UN act accordingly.
And what can you say about behavior of the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon that not only did not prevent abduction of Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory by Hizballah (it happened after withdrawal of IDF from Lebanon, so this cannot be considered pertaining to national liberation), but also doing their best to prevent giving to Israeli authorities any details on the crime they witnessed? Only U.S. pressure made the UN authorities to share information on the soldiers' fate with Israeli government.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 03:00 pm
Rick
These people are above all politicians many coming from corrupt regimes. What else can we expect. Honesty??
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 03:04 pm
Sorry, "these people"? Who do you mean? The people ruling Sudan? The UN?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 03:06 pm
Rick
We were speaking of the UN were we not?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Africa is a dying continent - Discussion by Pharon
Congo: The World Capital of Killing - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Notes from Africa - Discussion by dagmaraka
Tunisia From October 5 to 18, 2007 - Discussion by cicerone imposter
I hope this works out for Darfur... - Discussion by ossobuco
Let's see how well you know Africa - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Anyone know a lot about Sierra Leone? - Discussion by dlowan
Sudanese find peace? - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 11:50:01