au1929 wrote:Shame on the UN, shame on the EU and the rest of the nations of the world for standing by while this is happening.
Since you certainly followed th discussions:
why do you name the EU explicite - the Eu-countries are members of the UN as it is the USA, and the role of the latter in this discussion truely isn't better than that of any other nation.
Walter, What are you trying to say?
Walter.
The caption of this thread is United nations, EU , where are you?Yes the EU is a member of the UN. But they those nations of Europe that are rich and powerful should have been in the forefront and taken the initiative. I could have spelled out which nations I refer to but that no doubt would have raised your hackles even higher than just the mention of the EU did.
McGentrix wrote:Walter, What are you trying to say?
Quote:UN demands Sudan action on Darfur
The UN Security Council has warned the Sudan government that it must halt atrocities by Arab militias in the western Darfur region within 30 days.
A US-drafted resolution demanding that Khartoum disarm the fighters was passed with two abstentions.
The resolution also says that those responsible be arrested and tried.
The vote was only passed after the US dropped the word "sanctions" in exchange for the threat of economic and diplomatic "measures".
Up to 50,000 people have died and more than a million have fled their homes in Darfur.
The Janjaweed, the main Arab militia group allied with the government, has been blamed for mass rapes, killings and burning of villages in Darfur.
The resolution was backed by 13 council members. Two members, China and Pakistan, abstained.
The newly passed resolution calls on Sudan to make good on promises it made on 3 July to rein in the fighters. It has 30 days to comply.
It calls for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a report also in 30 days on the progress made in each of those areas.
The US removed any specific reference to sanctions in the resolution after objections from seven members - including China, Russia and Pakistan - who believe Khartoum needs more time to act.
But the resolution's sponsors say the substance of the threat remains in the wording of the text.
It notes that the council "expresses its intention to consider further actions - including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations - on the government of Sudan, in the event of non-compliance". Article 41 provides for sanctions to be applied.
Aid agencies, meanwhile, have criticised the changes, charging the resolution has become weaker and weaker. They also say the 30-day deadline is too long.
'African solution'
Along with those who have died or have been displaced in the Darfur conflict, an estimated 2.2 million people are in urgent need of food or medical attention.
A meeting of African leaders is also discussing Darfur.
The summit in Ghana has broken away from scheduled talks on Ivory Coast at the instigation of Nigerian leader Olusegun Obasanjo, who wants to find an "African solution" to the crisis.
He is urging African countries to send more troops to Sudan than the 300 they have already promised, saying the situation has worsened since the African Union discussed Sudan earlier this month.
The first of the 300 troops are expected to arrive next week, reports AFP news agency.
Analysts say 15-20,000 troops would be needed in Darfur, which is the size of France.
Source
Well, I'm just confused, why the EU has been named explicite in this context.
Why can't the EU take the initiative in at least one world event without the US holding their hand?
Because it's a UN matter.
Quote:The EU's 25 foreign ministers urged the Sudanese government to implement a July 3 promise to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to crack down on pro-government Arab militias, improve security and provide better access for relief efforts.
EU officials said they were studying the possibility of freezing the assets of the Sudanese government and rebel leaders. Any final decision would be up to the U.N. Security Council.
Source
The EU is part of the UN, right? Couldn't they also simply take personal initiative and try to settle the issues in Sudan? That's one of the problems with the EU, it always someone elses problem...
McG
Because the history of Europe is to take but never pay back. They do not believe that one good turn deserves another.
au1929 wrote:McG
Because the history of Europe is to take but never pay back. They do not believe that one good turn deserves another.
Okay, back to prejudices and platitudes.
If the EU wants itself to be taken seriously as a world organization, it must act on issues like this.
McGentrix wrote:If the EU wants itself to be taken seriously as a world organization, it must act on issues like this.
The EU is - as the name indicates - a EUROPEAN Union.
But it seems, this is as difficult and impossible to explain as what the UN is.
Walter
The EU is composed of individual nations. Many the were involved in the rape of Africa. Those nations IMO opinion should have taken the initiative. And not run for the cover of the UN or the EU.
regarding prejudices and platitudes. It would seem that you have no difficulty criticizing the US but when someone criticizes your beloved Europe it's a no -no. I understand the truth hurts.
Are there any countries in the EU that do not participate in the UN? I apologize if I was too literal in my statement. Shouldn't France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Swedan, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, etc... do something about the situation in Sudan other than wait for the UN to discuss it?
In writting this, I thought how alike this situation is compared to Star Wars one. Every thing gets sent to committee and nothing gets done until the Good Guys decide to just go ahead and do it...
McGentrix wrote:Are there any countries in the EU that do not participate in the UN? I apologize if I was too literal in my statement. Shouldn't France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Swedan, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, etc... do something about the situation in Sudan other than wait for the UN to discuss it?
When you would follow the international news in the media, you certainly would have notice that ...
au
I don't mind to talk about European history in Africa.
Not at all, to be frank.
(Not that I'm an expert, only passed some courses at university.)
