Hatrack River Forum: The UN tsk, tsks Sudan

This is topic The UN tsk, tsks Sudan in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=027506

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :

While the UN couches its admonitions in the softest rhetoric possible, people are being murdered, starved and driven from their homes.

Quietly allowing Genocide to fully begin

And the abstentions of China, Algeria, Pakistan and Russia? What gives with that?

We find it so easy to pin the War for Oil label on Bush and ourselves, but why is it so hard for someone to just step up and say that the UN is trading blood for oil?

And they are doing it on a scale that dwarfs the Iraqi conflict fivefold or more. 50,000 Iraqis haven't died, 1.2 million Iraqis haven't been driven from their homes and into starvation in the deserts.

But we are the bad guys?

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :

There is additional information being covered in the international media, e.g.,

Sudan government blames U.S. for peace talks breakdown

It is not a simple situation.

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :

Somehow I'm completely unsympathetic and untrusting of the Sudanese government.

They claim the violence is, if it is happening at all, at the hands of the militias.

Although, for some reason, the militias have been reported using military attack helicopters and old fighter planes. Yanno, the militia just found them and an old simulator and learned to use them effectively, just like they did on "Battlefield: Earth."

And it was Polish army soldiers who stormed that German radio station in 1939...

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :

I'd rather not be misconstrued as defending the Sudanese government. It isn't what I wanted to be when I grew up, any more than a crackhead. [Smile]

I think, though, that the Sudan government (and international ambassadors involved in the talks) are discussing the likelihood of regional instability if military force is used (this per BBC). On the one hand, we don't want to permit the horrors to continue. On the other hand, we don't want to make it worse just to go down in a blaze of glory.

I think it's complicated, and I think the US media is not as a whole giving due weight to that complicatedness. I wish the answer were more clear, and I support your passion about it, Sopwith.

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

China is a huge trading partner with Sudan. 25% of Sudanese exports go to China--source CIA factbook. And China gets a large proportion of its oil from Sudan. Factor in China's long-standing opposition to UN encroaching on national sovereignty or meddling in internal affairs of nations, and it's sadly clear why China is willing for the UN to do nothing to halt the genocide. [Frown]

I don't know why other countries aren't willing to do more, especially after the Rwanda genocide.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
"Statements made by senior officials of the U.S.A. poisoned the talks environment and sent wrong signals to the rebels who immediately stiffened their positions," said Najib Abdulwahab.

Am I alone in thinking that the statements he's referring to are naming it as genocide? If so, it seems like giving the rebels hope that the world won't abandon them is what stiffened their resolve. Definitely complicated.

Have we asked for a sterner response from the UN on this? I haven't seen detailed reports on this. Edit: I know we drafted this resolution, but have we asked for anything else.

Dagonee

[ September 19, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :

I've dug around half-heartedly for more information on why the UN is moving so slowly, Dagonne, but I haven't found it. I think the UN should move more quickly, but I'm unthrilled at the prospect of mowing in, guns blazing, without a thorough plan. It isn't just cold feet: it's wanting to do the right thing by these people.

I know there are people in the world with much-better informed opinions, people in power. I wish they and the media were doing more to explain what's being puzzled through at higher quarters. [Confused]

Sure does make for an environment ripe for second-guessing, as that's the only guessing (it appears) we citizens of the world have at this point.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

I know, and it's depressing. I can't imagine how to define the mission parameters. Is it purely defensive? Then there's no guarantee the force could ever leave. Do they hunt down the militias? That's not proving easy in Iraq.

How big a force do you need to protect 1.2 million at risk people?

Dagonee

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

Sopwith,
As I said the last time you brought this up, I am horrified by the situaiton in the Sudan and I do the letter writing thing about it and I try to get people concered about it and I believe that the UN has failed in this case and it many others to live up to its ideals and mandate, but I am bothered by the tone you bring to this topic of trying to justify the US. I think making this a point that the US should use to demonstrate its moral superiority over the rest of the world or to be put in context with the U.S. actions in Iraq does a grave disservice to the situation in Sudan and makes it a much more contentious issue.

The U.S. being right is a far far less important concern than the horrible situations that some people try to use to bring into arguments about more ambiguous parts of U.S. foreign policy. The situation in Sudan should be a concern in its own right and not seen as some sort of replaying of the Iraqi situation.