Political Crossfire Forums

[uzi]

O.k this thing has been going on for over a year now (well, actually many years, but I'm referring to this latest crisis), but still nobody wants to do anything to stop the suffering.

WHERE ARE ALL THE HUMAN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS???

Where is the U.N??? Where is the 10,000-strong peacekeeping force that was promised? Why isn't food and water reaching the people who need it the most?

What is Kofi doing besides visiting the country and enjoying the tourist attractions???

http://www.einnews.com/sudan/newsfeed-Darfur

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=88&Body=Sudan&Body1=

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/articleFull.asp?TID=42&Type=Article

http://www.ucc.org/disaster/d070604.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1233536,00.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/23/140223

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_072804I.shtml

[Nico]

uzi4ufriend wrote: Where is the U.N??? Where is the 10,000-strong peacekeeping force that was promised? Why isn't food and water reaching the people who need it the most?

I'm not sure exactly, but the link you gave, said the following:



Kofi Annan wrote: In recent months, the situation has stabilized, and fewer large-scale crimes have been reported. A massive U.N.-led humanitarian operation is under way, with more than 10,000 humanitarian workers (mostly Sudanese) delivering food, water, shelter and other lifesaving relief to as many as 1.8 million people. Where AU troops are on the ground, their heroic efforts have made a real difference: People are less exposed to predatory violence, many have returned to their villages, and attacks have decreased.


Is this what you were refering to?

Or the later paragraph:

Kofi Annan wrote: Indeed, Darfur can only benefit if the rest of the Sudan is at peace, and if the new government of national unity (due to take office in July) leads the whole country in a new, more inclusive direction. Thus the 10,000-strong peacekeeping force the United Nations is now deploying in the south will help make peace viable throughout the country, including Darfur.

[uzi]

Yes, this is what I am referring to.

Kofi Annan talks and talks, but in reality, food and water is still not reaching the people who need it, the peacekeeping force
is still not preventing attacks on innocent people, and pledges have remained just that: pledges.

The U.N is still moving too slowly and with too little determination as can be seen on any TV network on a daily basis. I didn't think anyone would need more links, we all watch TV from time to time...

Quote: We agree with the conclusion of the Chairperson’s report of April 28, 2005, that “the security situation remains unacceptable in that the number of people displaced and at risk in Darfur has doubled since last year and continues to rise.” (Report of the Chairperson of the Commission on the Situation in the Darfur Region of the Sudan, April 28, 2005, PSC/PR/2 (XXVIII), paragraph 103).


We note with dismay, however, that the number of AMIS forces currently deployed on the ground remains too low to contain the violence rampant in Darfur. While Human Rights Watch appreciates your commitment to strengthen AMIS to a second phase target of 6,171 military personnel and 1,560 civilian police (and staff) by the end of September 2005, we are concerned that this number of troops is still too low and the projected rate of deployment too slow to meet the urgent security needs in Darfur.


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/09/darfur10581.htm

Quote: Human Rights Watch called on donors and troop-contributing countries to agree at the Addis Ababa meeting on a firm timetable for accelerated deployment of 12,300 AU troops. The current African Union mission of 2,400 troops is too small to proactively protect civilians throughout Darfur, a region the size of France. Although current AU plans call for 12,300 troops on the ground by spring 2006, this is not fast enough, according to Human Rights Watch.

“If African countries contribute more troops and donors provide needed technical and logistical support now, it should be possible to speed up protection efforts in Darfur,” said Peter Takirambudde, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The people of Darfur can’t wait until next spring for the African Union to reach its planned troop deployment.”

Gross human rights abuses continue in Darfur, where Sudanese government-sponsored militia known as Janjaweed are attempting to consolidate “ethnic cleansing” by attacking internally displaced persons—mostly farmers—who try to return to their homes. The Sudanese government at the national and state level has taken no serious steps to rein in or prosecute those forces despite several U.N. Security Council resolutions since July demanding such action.

“The security situation remains clearly unsatisfactory for the whole population. Six million people in Darfur are faced with banditry, militia attacks and a devastated economy,” said Takirambudde. “Two million Darfurians have already been displaced, and most farmers will not be able to plant for yet another year.”

The United Nations has estimated that as many as 3.5 to 4 million people in Darfur will not have enough to eat in the next few months. The Sudanese government has recently stepped up its bureaucratic war on the vast humanitarian relief effort that is attempting to help millions of Darfurians. Since December, the Sudanese government has been trying to intimidate some humanitarian agencies in Darfur through arbitrary arrests, detentions and other more subtle forms of harassment.



http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/25/darfur11013.htm

What I'm saying is that kofi Annan's visit and the 10,000 or so peacekeepers is just too little, too late.

[Nico]

So why is the UN to blame when it doesn't have a mandate to occupy this foreign country? The UN can be just as upset as those watching the crisis, and yet not have the power to intervene. After all, as recent events have demonstrated, UN opinion by itself counts for little. Given that it is only the coat of arms of its member nations, it is the member nations who make up any force. Where are they? Where are their resolution proposals to occupy Darfur?
The large nations are co-operating with the Khartoum govt in the war on terror, so are we to assume that some of them don't want to push the issue too far?
Given the amount of UN sponsored and NGO run operations there, isn't the real issue not whether the UN is doing anything, which it patently is, but why there aren't guys with tanks and planes,shooting up the bad guys? If yes, the answer is because the Sudan Govt is playing innocent, and sponsoring the attacks. To send in masses of soldiers to confront the 'enemy', one would actually be challenging the Govt of Sudan, who as I mentioned earlier, are playing the 'cooperation' card. Can the UN declare war on a government? I'm not sure it can.
Sure darfur's a mess, but do you honestly think it's the UN's mess? The answer is no. The UN spends 99% of it's time trying to get stuff done in spite of what it's not allowed to do, thanks to its very own members, who all have their own interests at heart.
Thank USAID, MSF, Red Cross, UN groups and efforts for what they have been able to achieve. Thank political expediency for what they haven't.

[uzi]

Anaximander wrote: So why is the UN to blame when it doesn't have a mandate to occupy this foreign country? The UN can be just as upset as those watching the crisis, and yet not have the power to intervene. After all, as recent events have demonstrated, UN opinion by itself counts for little. Given that it is only the coat of arms of its member nations, it is the member nations who make up any force. Where are they? Where are their resolution proposals to occupy Darfur?
The large nations are co-operating with the Khartoum govt in the war on terror, so are we to assume that some of them don't want to push the issue too far?
Given the amount of UN sponsored and NGO run operations there, isn't the real issue not whether the UN is doing anything, which it patently is, but why there aren't guys with tanks and planes,shooting up the bad guys? If yes, the answer is because the Sudan Govt is playing innocent, and sponsoring the attacks. To send in masses of soldiers to confront the 'enemy', one would actually be challenging the Govt of Sudan, who as I mentioned earlier, are playing the 'cooperation' card. Can the UN declare war on a government? I'm not sure it can.
Sure darfur's a mess, but do you honestly think it's the UN's mess? The answer is no. The UN spends 99% of it's time trying to get stuff done in spite of what it's not allowed to do, thanks to its very own members, who all have their own interests at heart.
Thank USAID, MSF, Red Cross, UN groups and efforts for what they have been able to achieve. Thank political expediency for what they haven't.

This thread isn't an attack on the U.N. Yes, the U.N is the most prominent international body most people look to when it comes to humanitarian situations, and no one is disputing that the resolve of the U.N is only equal to the resolve of the international community. That is exactly my point.
Where is everybody???

What my thread asked was: does anyone care?

Where is public opinion? Where are all the human-rights activists? And yes, where is the U.N and why is the world doing so little?

And I didn't say we should invade Sudan. But what has so far been done is obviously not enough.

Don't kid yourself, the U.N can do a lot more. But the world just doesn't care about black African Muslims suffering what the U.S has called a genocide at the hands of Arab Muslims.

http://www.map.org/news/templates/news_release.asp?id=214

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/news2.php?article=News/senatebill.html

[Nico]

uzi4ufriend wrote:

Don't kid yourself, the U.N can do a lot more. But the world just doesn't care about black African Muslims suffering what the U.S has called a genocide at the hands of Arab Muslims.


Sure the world cares, but you know the feeling one gets when confronted with a tidal wave? Why doesn't the world care about the Ivory coast and Liberia, Guinea, Congo, Sierra Leonne, Somalia, Ethiopia, which were and are, disasters that have claimed far more lives than Darfur? They do care, but what do you do before you can invest all your worry in a remote part of the world? First you have to live in your own country and feed your own children.
The fighting between janjaweed and other tribes also has more to do with water and grazing than anything. Calling them Arabs is oversimplifying what's actually going. It also has little basis in religion as far as can be told.
That the Janjaweed oppose the rebel groups that have sprung up to oppose Khartoum also leads me to believe that the government is utterly complicit in goings on. As with most of Africa, tribe is all.
Something should be done, but how does one get around the government's [ in my view] complicity in events? Who will the world send and how will they get the Khartoum govt to accept the idea? So far Africans have been the only compromise forces I think, but there aren't enough of them.

[Alexander The Great]

uzi4ufriend wrote: O.k this thing has been going on for over a year now (well, actually many years, but I'm referring to this latest crisis), but still nobody wants to do anything to stop the suffering.

WHERE ARE ALL THE HUMAN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS???

Where is the U.N??? Where is the 10,000-strong peacekeeping force that was promised? Why isn't food and water reaching the people who need it the most?

What is Kofi doing besides visiting the country and enjoying the tourist attractions???

http://www.einnews.com/sudan/newsfeed-Darfur

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=88&Body=Sudan&Body1=

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/articleFull.asp?TID=42&Type=Article

http://www.ucc.org/disaster/d070604.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1233536,00.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/23/140223

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_072804I.shtml

I DO!

Send to my email your names if you want to sign a pettition against it:

eranigra@actcom.net.il

[Roxanne of the world]

Yes i do care! and m glad that others do to! I think the reason the UN has not been doing much is because the Sudanese (Sudanees?) government is unwilling to cooperate (hmmm i wonder why?) with countrys who want to send in peacekeeping forces. The government of Sudan has regected Canadas offer of 100 peacekeeping troops, and some money. But they have allowed the African Union peacekeepers in, but they have been unable to interfeer with the conflict, just act as observers and protect aid convoys (much needed) But back to your point, yes i do, but i think more people need to realize that we are deeling with another genocide

[Alexander The Great]

Roxanne of the world wrote: Yes i do care! and m glad that others do to! I think the reason the UN has not been doing much is because the Sudanese (Sudanees?) government is unwilling to cooperate (hmmm i wonder why?) with countrys who want to send in peacekeeping forces. The government of Sudan has regected Canadas offer of 100 peacekeeping troops, and some money. But they have allowed the African Union peacekeepers in, but they have been unable to interfeer with the conflict, just act as observers and protect aid convoys (much needed) But back to your point, yes i do, but i think more people need to realize that we are deeling with another genocide

The UN could call it a Genocidfe and to use Sanctions, but it's a sold organization anyway....

[uzi]

Alexander The Great wrote: Roxanne of the world wrote: Yes i do care! and m glad that others do to! I think the reason the UN has not been doing much is because the Sudanese (Sudanees?) government is unwilling to cooperate (hmmm i wonder why?) with countrys who want to send in peacekeeping forces. The government of Sudan has regected Canadas offer of 100 peacekeeping troops, and some money. But they have allowed the African Union peacekeepers in, but they have been unable to interfeer with the conflict, just act as observers and protect aid convoys (much needed) But back to your point, yes i do, but i think more people need to realize that we are deeling with another genocide

The UN could call it a Genocidfe and to use Sanctions, but it's a sold organization anyway....

Excellent point!

[Roxanne of the world]

uzi4ufriend wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: Roxanne of the world wrote: Yes i do care! and m glad that others do to! I think the reason the UN has not been doing much is because the Sudanese (Sudanees?) government is unwilling to cooperate (hmmm i wonder why?) with countrys who want to send in peacekeeping forces. The government of Sudan has regected Canadas offer of 100 peacekeeping troops, and some money. But they have allowed the African Union peacekeepers in, but they have been unable to interfeer with the conflict, just act as observers and protect aid convoys (much needed) But back to your point, yes i do, but i think more people need to realize that we are deeling with another genocide

The UN could call it a Genocidfe and to use Sanctions, but it's a sold organization anyway....




Excellent point!


Thats true......this looks like a job for 'team america world police' :bana:

[Nico]

The Genocide ticket is exactly the problem. Have a look at the Rwanda case to find out exactly why members of the UN with veto powers don't let the word be used in raising resolutions. Have a look why the Rwanda genocide resolution got put down, then have a look at why the Darfur one is languishing.
It's always any one power using their own interpretation and national interest at a specific time.

[Roxanne of the world]

hello , i ve been away all summer, in a location which world news is not easiest to get, and the location is so secret i'd have to kill you if i told you.
any way the point is i was wondering if anyone could tell me if there have been any improvements over the past two monthes, or maby nothing at all has happned. has aid been getting in...? has it gotten worse...? or maby this whole think has lost its tiny bit of media coverage. thank yous

[thefranzkafkafront]

There was a huge uproar about this in the u.k a month or two ago died down a bit since, the British red cross and medicans sans frontiers are out there pretty heavily, there have even been several visits by Members of the British Cabinet.

Just because America doesn't care docent mean the rest of the west turns a blind eye.


Still a lot left to be desired in the situation.

The main reason for the u.n impotency is the same reason for the league of nations. The major powers on the security council Britain and the u.s are refused to work with the u.n on Iraq and now the world sees it as a lame duck, and its starting to convince itself it is.