UN Darfur report does not see genocide

Remove all ads!

Apparently, the UN is only able to see genocide clearly through a rear-view mirror.

 

Once again, the UN proves it's usefullness.


NOT!!

 

Perhaps it would also be better if you also posted the third line?

"There has been no confirmation of the contents of the report from U.N. officials."

Hell, what do you think, that the foreign minister of the government that is thought to have committed genocide will come out and say: "Hell yeah, we killed them all"?

Sjeesh...

 

That has an easy explanation: They were so enraged already as to overread what didn't fit what they wanted to read

And how about posting the last lines? Wether it actually was genocide or 'just' mass murder is really the least of problems.

Isn't that what counts?

 

Well not really until some action is taken. It's pointless to yell out that actions will have to be taken in this conflict when no one seems to be willing to do anything. The serious violations of human rights there have been clear for quite some time and yet the world just stands and watches the slaughter go on.

 

You do know that the UN has no militairy power itself... the only thing the UN can impose are trade embargoes, or give admission to use of militairy force, with troops from the International Community

 

... and even for that the UN requires cooperation from that members in the international community sitting in the security council ...

The UN is only as good as the goodwill of its members.

 

Granted, Annan hints at "action," but what does that mean? A sharply worded letter reading "uh, please, could you guys stop what you're doing in Darfur?"

So who should take the lead on this if not the UN? The US? The EU? If the US completely botched its diplomatic effort in the run up to Iraq, and has totally alienated Arabs worldwide already, wouldn't this be the perfect time for the UN (or the EU) to assert itself on the world stage?

 

Yes, it would be, but no one who doesn't feel they have a very good reason (read: political/economical advantage) to do so will do anything about it.

Sadly this is what such interventions always come down to at the end of the day. And right now, no one really seems to care about what happens in Sudan, because there's nothing of interest there to any of the big powers.

Not even all of them, unfortunately. It seems the only ones who really have any say in what the UN does or does not are the security council permament members. And six countries just isn't much.

 

The EU has no central military organization so how can it intervene? If someone would intervene it would be NATO and then the operation would probably be led by Americans. Besides now when Sudan is no more guilty of the G-word I doubt anyone will do anything about it. The case will just get buried and forgotten.

 

in the case of NATO, forget it. With Iraq being the quagmire it is, if there is any round to be saved it will probably be for the next country in the "liberation" waiting list.
In Sudan, an operation could be set under way if the funds were available, iirc there are smaller forces with troops from various AU (african union) members elsewhere. I do not know how effective they are, but I suppose they could have helped to at least lessen things down. The problem is, the money has to come from somewhere.

 

Actually the NATO has nothing to do with the Iraqi conflict... Some of the participating countries in the NATO have sent troops, but that doesn't make it a NATO operation...

And its quite hard for people that were target of the genocide to suddenly get a rifle and sent into an other country solely to keep peace, while relatives might have been killed... It really should be independant troops...

 

What race or ethic group is actually being slaughtered in Darfur?

 

One of the problems of policing genocide is that it's hard to know when to go in, let alone get a group of nations to agree on it, split responsibilities and bills. Almost always, intervention comes after the damage is already mostly done, and for anything but altruistic reasons.

@ Morgoth: I think it's more of a civil war issue - everything I could find from a quick check said "government" and "rebel" forces. Probably a reason why it can't technically be called "genocide".

 

Think of the number of murders and rapes that could have been prevented if we were not going to war with Iraq.

Trade sanctions is just an insult to all the victims of Darfur.

 

Just so everybody understands why the "genocide" label is so important inside the confines of the United Nations:

I don't know how many years ago. I suspect the 50's, but it may have been the 60's, good old Switzerland came through for everyone.

What they did was write, into the United Nations charter, that a designation of "genocide" requires members to send troops.

If the Security Council labels some outback city-state in Mogadishu as committing "genocide", the Security Council members are required to send troops. I don't know if they are also required to abide by sanctions and all the other "diplomatic" effects, but I do know they are required to send troops. I don't know how many, I don't know how fast, I don't know about the logistics. I just know that "prudent military action" is required, with the label of genocide.

So.

THAT'S why they didn't call it genocide. It's the same thing as saying "we're not prepared to send troops, at the present time. Please call back for further assistance."