Full Version: Sudanese Genocide
In a report, the UN has stopped short of referring to the killings and forced removal of (circa) 2 million people currently taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan as 'genocide', thus releasing the UN from a legal obligation to intervene.
The USA has stood against the UN report, calling upon the UN to set up a court to charge the guilty parties and impose sanctions against Sudan. Link Link
In return, the UN has stated that it desires to take the case before the ICC, a move which the USA apparently opposes due to its position with regards to the ICC. The EU backs the UN in the matter of the ICC.
Questions for debate:
Given that eye witnesses on the ground, including senior US politicians, are reporting the wide scale murder of people on the basis of religion and ethnic identity (or in other words, black skin) and given the reported forced expulsion of 2 million people from the region...
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
The USA has stood against the UN report, calling upon the UN to set up a court to charge the guilty parties and impose sanctions against Sudan. Link Link
In return, the UN has stated that it desires to take the case before the ICC, a move which the USA apparently opposes due to its position with regards to the ICC. The EU backs the UN in the matter of the ICC.
Questions for debate:
Given that eye witnesses on the ground, including senior US politicians, are reporting the wide scale murder of people on the basis of religion and ethnic identity (or in other words, black skin) and given the reported forced expulsion of 2 million people from the region...
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
It failed a long time ago. They could have stopped the violence and sent in peacekeepers with worldwide support. Rather they would rather justify criticisms that they are just a sophisticated debate society. This is just another instance in which the UN has failed to secure peace in hostile situations. Rhwanda, Somalia, the Sebreca Massacre, and now the Sudan. They cannot even acknowledge that genocide has taken place when tens of thousands have been killed and over 1.5 million have been displaced which is having a serious drain on the surrounding nations.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Absolutely not. The US is perfectly justified in not giving power to the ICC. It has numerous flaws that need to be reformed before it is even considered. Furthermore...the ICC has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. What is the difference between an ICC Ruling and a UN Resolution? Is the Sudanese government more likely to respond? I think not.
People must learn that you must have a bite to back up your bark. Why should the Sudanese listen? What reason? The only way that we can ensure they stop is by sending in peacekeepers. But if the US does not spearhead the situation nothing will get done. Most of the world would just like to make believe it isnt happening.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
No. Not unless some world leaders take initiative with military action. Economic, political sanctions by way of the UN is a ridiculous assertion because a UN resolution would never pass. China, a permanent member on the UN Security Council, has major oil deals with Sudan and would like to maintain the status quo.
The UN is in a real fix. It is arguable that it can function as a mediator and debate society...but when it comes to securing justice and freeing the oppressed...they are nowhere to be found.
Its the obligation of the free world to help those who cannot help themselves. The people of Sudan have been crying for help for months and nobody has heard the call.
It failed a long time ago. They could have stopped the violence and sent in peacekeepers with worldwide support. Rather they would rather justify criticisms that they are just a sophisticated debate society. This is just another instance in which the UN has failed to secure peace in hostile situations. Rhwanda, Somalia, the Sebreca Massacre, and now the Sudan. They cannot even acknowledge that genocide has taken place when tens of thousands have been killed and over 1.5 million have been displaced which is having a serious drain on the surrounding nations.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Absolutely not. The US is perfectly justified in not giving power to the ICC. It has numerous flaws that need to be reformed before it is even considered. Furthermore...the ICC has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. What is the difference between an ICC Ruling and a UN Resolution? Is the Sudanese government more likely to respond? I think not.
People must learn that you must have a bite to back up your bark. Why should the Sudanese listen? What reason? The only way that we can ensure they stop is by sending in peacekeepers. But if the US does not spearhead the situation nothing will get done. Most of the world would just like to make believe it isnt happening.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
No. Not unless some world leaders take initiative with military action. Economic, political sanctions by way of the UN is a ridiculous assertion because a UN resolution would never pass. China, a permanent member on the UN Security Council, has major oil deals with Sudan and would like to maintain the status quo.
The UN is in a real fix. It is arguable that it can function as a mediator and debate society...but when it comes to securing justice and freeing the oppressed...they are nowhere to be found.
Its the obligation of the free world to help those who cannot help themselves. The people of Sudan have been crying for help for months and nobody has heard the call.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
I don’t know if I’d go quite that far, but they aren’t helping matters any. I was troubled when I read this:
So, we can’t help prevent genocide (they may refuse to use the word, but it is what it is) because the perpetrators of that genocide are the same people we are “working hard to bring freedom and democracy to” and they might be unhappy about that? I am speechless.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
By the US? Doubtful (see above). Regardless of the pap fed to the public, our government is not interested in human rights violations if there is no inherent strategic value to preventing or stopping them.
I don’t know if I’d go quite that far, but they aren’t helping matters any. I was troubled when I read this:
QUOTE
The Bush administration has refused to join the international court, arguing that America's enemies could use it to prosecute captured American soldiers. ZWire
So, we can’t help prevent genocide (they may refuse to use the word, but it is what it is) because the perpetrators of that genocide are the same people we are “working hard to bring freedom and democracy to” and they might be unhappy about that? I am speechless.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
By the US? Doubtful (see above). Regardless of the pap fed to the public, our government is not interested in human rights violations if there is no inherent strategic value to preventing or stopping them.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Feb 1 2005, 06:31 PM)
So, we can’t help prevent genocide (they may refuse to use the word, but it is what it is) because the perpetrators of that genocide are the same people we are “working hard to bring freedom and democracy to” and they might be unhappy about that? I am speechless.
Again, how exactly does joining the ICC stop genocide? And even if for some reason the US did join the court...what power would it yield? We hand down a guilty verdict...show genocide occurred...then what? The Sudanese gov't going to come quietly?
Diplomacy has long passed its use in Darfur.
QUOTE
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Screw declaring it genocide...How 'bout trying to stop it from continuing. They could call it Cops and Robbers for all I care, what's more disturbing to me is the fact that the UN isn't taking action. By my count the League of Nations/United Nations is 0/2 when it comes to preventing genocide.QUOTE
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
No. The US isn't preventing the UN from bringing their peacekeepers in to...Keep the peace, and that's the only real "prevention" that would bother me in this case.QUOTE
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
I don't know, I guess it depends on how Somalia, head of the genocide prevention comittee reacts 
. It's tough to say, obviously the US isn't going to do anything about it right now, militarily speaking, we've got enough on our plate...So that means we have to rely on Europe to react...[inhales and begins to hold breath]CP
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Feb 1 2005, 03:31 PM)
I don’t know if I’d go quite that far, but they aren’t helping matters any. I was troubled when I read this:
So, we can’t help prevent genocide (they may refuse to use the word, but it is what it is) because the perpetrators of that genocide are the same people we are “working hard to bring freedom and democracy to” and they might be unhappy about that? I am speechless.
QUOTE
The Bush administration has refused to join the international court, arguing that America's enemies could use it to prosecute captured American soldiers. ZWire
So, we can’t help prevent genocide (they may refuse to use the word, but it is what it is) because the perpetrators of that genocide are the same people we are “working hard to bring freedom and democracy to” and they might be unhappy about that? I am speechless.
I can't imagine how you've come to this conclusion. Your statement here leaves ME virtually speechless. It's the US which is calling for charges of genocide, along with strong measures and, yes, court trials for the perpetrators to begin with. Not the UN. I've been through the ICC many times on different threads, and I'm loath to go in to it now. Suffice it to say our soldiers should be offered the same Constitutional guarentees when performing their duties at the government's beheast as you or I, Daffygrl. Sorry you don't think so. I see no compelling reason why International Criminal Tribunals for Sudan cannot be held as they were for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in Christmases past. This is obstruction of justice and how, precisely?
The Sudan is a mess. There are roughly a million child soldiers, and it would likely be a bloodbath if they sent in the troops. Nations with vital interests in Sudan would stand to lose a lot in the event of UN mandated sanctions (lots of oil over there). I think the situation warrants them, but it's the age-old problem of those nations with conflicting interests coming to an agreement. We'll likely at least unilaterally sanction them, as we did for years before.
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur? Has it ever. This is just one of many that the UN has failed to act upon. Where to start, there are so many....
I will leave it that the UN has again done nothing to further peace, in fact is facilitate war-crimes by it's very inaction.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC? Not hardly, ICC is an organization of un-elected, unanswerable individuals appointed by dictatorships that support genocide.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?Not a change in heck as long as the aggressors are Muslims. There will be nothing done.
And if not why not?Because Islam is a 'peaceful religion' just ask them. The rest of the world just doesn't get it. They give a free pass to Islamists to commit war-crimes worthy of the worst tyrants in history and say absolutely nothing.
When the Bosnians were suffering from wave after wave of terrorism from their Muslim neighbors to the south, the rest of the world said and did nothing. When the Bosnians fought back, NATO bombed them. Now that we have formal genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sudanese in the Darfur region, the UN hasn't the guts to call a spade a spade.
I will leave it that the UN has again done nothing to further peace, in fact is facilitate war-crimes by it's very inaction.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC? Not hardly, ICC is an organization of un-elected, unanswerable individuals appointed by dictatorships that support genocide.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?Not a change in heck as long as the aggressors are Muslims. There will be nothing done.
And if not why not?Because Islam is a 'peaceful religion' just ask them. The rest of the world just doesn't get it. They give a free pass to Islamists to commit war-crimes worthy of the worst tyrants in history and say absolutely nothing.
When the Bosnians were suffering from wave after wave of terrorism from their Muslim neighbors to the south, the rest of the world said and did nothing. When the Bosnians fought back, NATO bombed them. Now that we have formal genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sudanese in the Darfur region, the UN hasn't the guts to call a spade a spade.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Feb 2 2005, 01:52 PM)
And if not why not?Because Islam is a 'peaceful religion' just ask them. The rest of the world just doesn't get it. They give a free pass to Islamists to commit war-crimes worthy of the worst tyrants in history and say absolutely nothing.
When the Bosnians were suffering from wave after wave of terrorism from their Muslim neighbors to the south, the rest of the world said and did nothing. When the Bosnians fought back, NATO bombed them. Now that we have formal genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sudanese in the Darfur region, the UN hasn't the guts to call a spade a spade.
When the Bosnians were suffering from wave after wave of terrorism from their Muslim neighbors to the south, the rest of the world said and did nothing. When the Bosnians fought back, NATO bombed them. Now that we have formal genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sudanese in the Darfur region, the UN hasn't the guts to call a spade a spade.
Q. What religion are most of the people being ethnically cleansed from Darfur?
A. Muslim
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the international community's response to this situation, attitudes to and of Islam have got nothing to do with it. This is straghtforward racism.
QUOTE(Julian @ Feb 3 2005, 09:34 AM)
Q. What religion are most of the people being ethnically cleansed from Darfur?
A. Muslim
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the international community's response to this situation, attitudes to and of Islam have got nothing to do with it. This is straghtforward racism.
Actually Islam has everything to do with and the racism is by the Muslim majorityA. Muslim
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the international community's response to this situation, attitudes to and of Islam have got nothing to do with it. This is straghtforward racism.
QUOTE
The southern region has a population of around 6 million and a predominantly rural, subsistence economy. This region has been negatively affected by war for all but 10 years of the independence period (1956), resulting in serious neglect, lack of infrastructure development, and major destruction and displacement. More than 2 million people have died, and more than 4 million are internally displaced persons or become refugees as a result of the civil war and war-related impacts. Here the Sudanese practice mainly indigenous traditional beliefs, although some practice Christianity as a result of Christian missionary efforts. The south also contains many tribal groups and uses many more languages than in the north. The Dinka (pop. est. more than 1 million) is the largest of the many Black African tribes of the Sudan. Along with the Shilluk and the Nuer, they are among the Nilotic tribes. The Azande, Bor, and Jo Luo are “Sudanic” tribes in the west, and the Acholi and Lotuhu live in the extreme south, extending into Uganda.
From the Wikipedia Free Dictionary on the Demographics of Sudan. So the answer to your question is not Muslim but indigenous traditionalists.
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Genocide is only a label. Therefore I only think it matters if it lessens the effort to create peace in Sudan.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Be a waste of millions of dollars.
-Make the world perceive as being stubborn.
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
As lederuvdapac mentioned, China will veto attempts to make sanctions However, once the case is sent to the ICC it may be out of Chinese hands.
Genocide is only a label. Therefore I only think it matters if it lessens the effort to create peace in Sudan.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Be a waste of millions of dollars.
-Make the world perceive as being stubborn.
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
As lederuvdapac mentioned, China will veto attempts to make sanctions However, once the case is sent to the ICC it may be out of Chinese hands.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Feb 4 2005, 08:31 PM)
As lederuvdapac mentioned, China will veto attempts to make sanctions However, once the case is sent to the ICC it may be out of Chinese hands.
Again...nobody has answered this. What is the difference between a UN Resolution and an ICC Ruling? What does the ICC have to do with genocide in Darfur? For what reason would the Sudanese listen to the ICC?
You can only fight this with peacekeepers... which will come too little too late.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Feb 4 2005, 05:31 PM)
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Be a waste of millions of dollars.
-Make the world perceive as being stubborn.
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
As lederuvdapac mentioned, China will veto attempts to make sanctions However, once the case is sent to the ICC it may be out of Chinese hands.
Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Be a waste of millions of dollars.
-Make the world perceive as being stubborn.
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
As lederuvdapac mentioned, China will veto attempts to make sanctions However, once the case is sent to the ICC it may be out of Chinese hands.
Since when does a criminal court have the power to enforce sanctions? Did you read your own link? Are you familiar with the purpose of the ICC? They can't overrule members of the Security council and force them to impose sanctions. Furthermore, awaiting the process of a trial (whether via ICC or an International Criminal tribunal), and the necessary gathering of suspects would take a lot of time. It would also require a means to gather those suspects because they likely wouldn't come willingly. The slaughter is happening now....and the US isn't the one dawdling here.
QUOTE
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Yes... but sadly this is what I expected.
QUOTE
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Allow me to rephrase this question...Are European nations playing politics with the lives of the people of Sudan in order to better push their own agenda..aka the ICC? Yes they are.
And exactly how will the ICC enforce justice? Who will they send into Sudan to round up and detain the suspected war criminals..collect evidence? What an utter farce. The whole justice taking place for crimes against humanity thing usually happens post a major war/military/international campaign of some kind..not prior.
QUOTE
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
Let us ask our friends in Canada..or our friends in China this question. Each of which are hardly innocent bystanders in this "peripheral genocide". Why won't the international community put pressure on these two nations to use some of their political clout in Sudan? Yes China will veto this because sanctions are very bad for business.
Again...nobody has answered this. What is the difference between a UN Resolution and an ICC Ruling? What does the ICC have to do with genocide in Darfur? For what reason would the Sudanese listen to the ICC?
You can only fight this with peacekeepers... which will come too little too late.
Under the assumption that I correctly interpreted the site, the ICC is run by something like a legislature. None of the countrys in the legislature have the power to veto decisions. This is probably why the president doesn't like it. If it makes a decision that he opposes, he cant veto it. I'm not certain of exactly what kinds of resolutions this legislature can pass, but China would not have the veto power necessary to prevent resolutions from going into effect. However, any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
bucket:
And exactly how will the ICC enforce justice? Who will they send into Sudan to round up and detain the suspected war criminals..collect evidence?
At least the media attention will make the populace better aware of the problem. Even if the ICC accomplishes nothing, there is still a positive result.
You can only fight this with peacekeepers... which will come too little too late.
Under the assumption that I correctly interpreted the site, the ICC is run by something like a legislature. None of the countrys in the legislature have the power to veto decisions. This is probably why the president doesn't like it. If it makes a decision that he opposes, he cant veto it. I'm not certain of exactly what kinds of resolutions this legislature can pass, but China would not have the veto power necessary to prevent resolutions from going into effect. However, any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
bucket:
And exactly how will the ICC enforce justice? Who will they send into Sudan to round up and detain the suspected war criminals..collect evidence?
At least the media attention will make the populace better aware of the problem. Even if the ICC accomplishes nothing, there is still a positive result.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Feb 4 2005, 11:28 PM)
Under the assumption that I correctly interpreted the site, the ICC is run by something like a legislature. None of the countrys in the legislature have the power to veto. This is probably why the president doesn't like it. If it makes a decision that he opposes, he cant veto it. I'm not quite certain of exactly what kinds of resolutions this legislature can pass, but the China would not have the veto power necessary to prevent resolutions from going into effect. However, any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
But under whose authority? In the court systems in any country around the world. When a judge hands down a sentence...it is enforced whether by fines, prison time, exc... What power does the ICC have? If they hand down a ruling....how would their ruling be enforced? Are they going to send in troops and gather evidence as Mrs. Pigpen asked?
The ICC has no authority and would in no way solve this crisis or any other crisis for that matter.
EDITED:
QUOTE(a left handed person)
At least the media attention will make the populace better aware of the problem. Even if the ICC accomplishes nothing, there is still a positive result
.They can do that without handing over US jurisdiction to the useless ICC.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Feb 4 2005, 08:28 PM)
Again...nobody has answered this. What is the difference between a UN Resolution and an ICC Ruling? What does the ICC have to do with genocide in Darfur? For what reason would the Sudanese listen to the ICC?
You can only fight this with peacekeepers... which will come too little too late.
Under the assumption that I correctly interpreted the site, the ICC is run by something like a legislature. None of the countrys in the legislature have the power to veto decisions. This is probably why the president doesn't like it. If it makes a decision that he opposes, he cant veto it. I'm not certain of exactly what kinds of resolutions this legislature can pass, but China would not have the veto power necessary to prevent resolutions from going into effect. However, any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
You can only fight this with peacekeepers... which will come too little too late.
Under the assumption that I correctly interpreted the site, the ICC is run by something like a legislature. None of the countrys in the legislature have the power to veto decisions. This is probably why the president doesn't like it. If it makes a decision that he opposes, he cant veto it. I'm not certain of exactly what kinds of resolutions this legislature can pass, but China would not have the veto power necessary to prevent resolutions from going into effect. However, any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
The ICC is a court. It has the power to try suspects. It doesn't have the power to enforce sanctions, and the purpose of sanctions to begin (restoring peace, allowing humanitarian aid to go to the proper recipients, ect) would have to happen before any suspects could come to trial....or it would basically defeat the purpose. What's the point of trying war criminals while the slaughter continues?
QUOTE
bucket:
And exactly how will the ICC enforce justice? Who will they send into Sudan to round up and detain the suspected war criminals..collect evidence?
At least the media attention will make the populace better aware of the problem. Even if the ICC accomplishes nothing, there is still a positive result.
Why couldn't the media be aware of the problem via International Criminal tribunals...the same way they were "made aware" by the trials of Milosevic and company, and Radio Rwanda. No one is suggesting the perpetrators don't go to trial. Just not via the ICC. And it's rather impossible (not to mention pointless) until the slaughter stops, wouldn't you say?And exactly how will the ICC enforce justice? Who will they send into Sudan to round up and detain the suspected war criminals..collect evidence?
At least the media attention will make the populace better aware of the problem. Even if the ICC accomplishes nothing, there is still a positive result.
Edited to add: Sanctions have worked in Sudan before, even when the US did them without the UN. It is not the most effective means, obviously. Senator Danforth produced a small miracle by getting the two sides to agree to peace in the summer of 2002. The "peace" was doled out in six month renewable truces.
QUOTE
However, any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
That isn't true. Sudan is said to spend over 60% of their oil revenues on their military..the same military that is accused of bombing , killing and "almost" committing genocide. The largest seller of military equipment to Sudan is currently Russia ..oh look another fixed member of the UNSC.
The ICC is meant to punish individuals...not states. How will we resolve the war in Sudan by just requesting a few sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered on the world podium? What will be achieved?
Also the ICC is independent of the UN and so naturally the UNSC as well and so it is not reliant on the US as the US is not a member state..so why can't the ICC just go ahead and get on with whatever it is they claim is their "jurisdiction" in cases such as these? How is the US preventing this from happening?
QUOTE
At least the media attention will make the populace better aware of the problem. Even if the ICC accomplishes nothing, there is still a positive result.
Has Sudan not been in the headlines? With all this is it a genocide or is it not nonsense. The US military is there now..doing something. If other nations wish to excuse the US of preventing a quicker solution to the genocide in Sudan..altho the US lent her services to airlift the AU peacekeepers in, lent her aircraft to fly in aid and supplies ..has always remained constant on acheiving a peace agreement..then they should be prepared to send in more than just judges and prosecutors. If other states are so concerned then join in the current actions being taken to save the lives of the people of Sudan.
The most absurd thing about this issue in regards to the ICC is one of the main points of contention as to why the world needed to suffer under the "jurisdiction" of a permanent international court was for a deterrent. That with this court in function and given this independent authority evil doers would be less tempted to just run amok in the vast lawlessness of the international stage.
But under whose authority? In the court systems in any country around the world. When a judge hands down a sentence...it is enforced whether by fines, prison time, exc... What power does the ICC have? If they hand down a ruling....how would their ruling be enforced? Are they going to send in troops and gather evidence as Mrs. Pigpen asked?
The ICC has no authority and would in no way solve this crisis or any other crisis for that matter.
The ICC is a court. It has the power to try suspects. It doesn't have the power to enforce sanctions, and the purpose of sanctions to begin (restoring peace, allowing humanitarian aid to go to the proper recipients, ect) would have to happen before any suspects could come to trial....or it would basically defeat the purpose. What's the point of trying war criminals while the slaughter continues?
If a conclusion has been made that trying Sudan will accomplish nothing, why should millions of dollars (For an alternative court to the ICC) be wasted on an ill fated effort to do so.
Why couldn't the media be aware of the problem via International Criminal tribunals...the same way they were "made aware" by the trials of Milosevic and company, and Radio Rwanda. No one is suggesting the perpetrators don't go to trial. Just not via the ICC. And it's rather impossible (not to mention pointless) until the slaughter stops, wouldn't you say?
They can do that without handing over US jurisdiction to the useless ICC.
It is quite evident that ICC promises to be more controversial then ICT. Naturally using the ICC would therefore gain superior media attention. However, decisions shouldn't be made on merely that basis. The primary cause for my opposition to the ICT, remains the costs that are involved.
That isn't true. Sudan is said to spend over 60% of their oil revenues on their military..the same military that is accused of bombing , killing and "almost" committing genocide. The largest seller of military equipment to Sudan is currently Russia ..oh look another fixed member of the UNSC.
Edited to add: Sanctions have worked in Sudan before, even when the US did them without the UN. It is not the most effective means, obviously. Senator Danforth produced a small miracle by getting the two sides to agree to peace in the summer of 2002. The "peace" was doled out in six month renewable truces.
I believe that Danforth's success proved me wrong in my assertion that any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
The ICC is meant to punish individuals...not states. How will we resolve the war in Sudan by just requesting a few sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered on the world podium? What will be achieved?
Also the ICC is independent of the UN and so naturally the UNSC as well and so it is not reliant on the US as the US is not a member state..so why can't the ICC just go ahead and get on with whatever it is they claim is their "jurisdiction" in cases such as these? How is the US preventing this from happening?
Presumably the UNSC has to hand the case over to the ICC. This would put the US in a position to veto the transfer of authority.
Has Sudan not been in the headlines? With all this is it a genocide or is it not nonsense. The US military is there now..doing something. If other nations wish to excuse the US of preventing a quicker solution to the genocide in Sudan..altho the US lent her services to airlift the AU peacekeepers in, lent her aircraft to fly in aid and supplies ..has always remained constant on achieving a peace agreement..then they should be prepared to send in more than just judges and prosecutors. If other states are so concerned then join in the current actions being taken to save the lives of the people of Sudan.
Sudan has had attention here and there, but it hasn't received the headline attention that it deserves.
The ICC has no authority and would in no way solve this crisis or any other crisis for that matter.
The ICC is a court. It has the power to try suspects. It doesn't have the power to enforce sanctions, and the purpose of sanctions to begin (restoring peace, allowing humanitarian aid to go to the proper recipients, ect) would have to happen before any suspects could come to trial....or it would basically defeat the purpose. What's the point of trying war criminals while the slaughter continues?
If a conclusion has been made that trying Sudan will accomplish nothing, why should millions of dollars (For an alternative court to the ICC) be wasted on an ill fated effort to do so.
Why couldn't the media be aware of the problem via International Criminal tribunals...the same way they were "made aware" by the trials of Milosevic and company, and Radio Rwanda. No one is suggesting the perpetrators don't go to trial. Just not via the ICC. And it's rather impossible (not to mention pointless) until the slaughter stops, wouldn't you say?
They can do that without handing over US jurisdiction to the useless ICC.
It is quite evident that ICC promises to be more controversial then ICT. Naturally using the ICC would therefore gain superior media attention. However, decisions shouldn't be made on merely that basis. The primary cause for my opposition to the ICT, remains the costs that are involved.
That isn't true. Sudan is said to spend over 60% of their oil revenues on their military..the same military that is accused of bombing , killing and "almost" committing genocide. The largest seller of military equipment to Sudan is currently Russia ..oh look another fixed member of the UNSC.
Edited to add: Sanctions have worked in Sudan before, even when the US did them without the UN. It is not the most effective means, obviously. Senator Danforth produced a small miracle by getting the two sides to agree to peace in the summer of 2002. The "peace" was doled out in six month renewable truces.
I believe that Danforth's success proved me wrong in my assertion that any effective oil sanction would require Chinese support (This is due to the fact that China is Sudans biggest Oil Customer).
The ICC is meant to punish individuals...not states. How will we resolve the war in Sudan by just requesting a few sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered on the world podium? What will be achieved?
Also the ICC is independent of the UN and so naturally the UNSC as well and so it is not reliant on the US as the US is not a member state..so why can't the ICC just go ahead and get on with whatever it is they claim is their "jurisdiction" in cases such as these? How is the US preventing this from happening?
Presumably the UNSC has to hand the case over to the ICC. This would put the US in a position to veto the transfer of authority.
Has Sudan not been in the headlines? With all this is it a genocide or is it not nonsense. The US military is there now..doing something. If other nations wish to excuse the US of preventing a quicker solution to the genocide in Sudan..altho the US lent her services to airlift the AU peacekeepers in, lent her aircraft to fly in aid and supplies ..has always remained constant on achieving a peace agreement..then they should be prepared to send in more than just judges and prosecutors. If other states are so concerned then join in the current actions being taken to save the lives of the people of Sudan.
Sudan has had attention here and there, but it hasn't received the headline attention that it deserves.
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Yes. Genocide has occured in Darfur, and the UN needs to declare it genocide.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
I don't think so. The USA does not have to lead everything, and take place in everything. Let the rest of the international community deal with it.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
Nothing can be done.
And if not why not?
The only thing you can do is remove dangerous regimes from power, which takes a while, but it's worth it. (i.e. Afghanistan)
Yes. Genocide has occured in Darfur, and the UN needs to declare it genocide.
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
I don't think so. The USA does not have to lead everything, and take place in everything. Let the rest of the international community deal with it.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
Nothing can be done.
And if not why not?
The only thing you can do is remove dangerous regimes from power, which takes a while, but it's worth it. (i.e. Afghanistan)
Please note a few posts were removed from this thread that were in response to a post that was inflammatory and against the Rules. Please do not respond to such posts and instead, report them. None of you should be subject to rude, uncivil comments at America's Debate.
TOPICS
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
TOPICS
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
And if not why not?
QUOTE
Presumably the UNSC has to hand the case over to the ICC. This would put the US in a position to veto the transfer of authority.
No that is not true there are four means a case can be recommended to the court..
1. A country member of the Assembly of States Parties sends the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
3. The Security Council sends the case (subject to veto from the permanent five members); or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the International Prosecutor.
source
This is one of the powers the ICC holds..is that it is an independent court ..and is not reliant on a UNSC vote.
So again please explain to us how it is the US who is delaying or preventing the ICC from taking action. As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost.
Has the UN failed in its duty to declare that genocide is taking in Darfur?
Yes and no. The UN determines genocide as the systematic slaughter of a race or ethnic people committed by the government. The Sudan government has stated it does not approve of the Janjaweed's actions. Something needs to be done. The UN report says as much also (source: UN Darfur Report).
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
No. If the US government wants to take matters into their own hands, then fine. We took pre-emptive action against Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's murderous ways. Of course, this brings me to wonder if President Bush even cares. In his 50-minute State of the Union address, he didn't mention Sudan once.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
No.
And if not why not?
Because nobody really cares about genocide unless it benefits our economy and/or security.
Yes and no. The UN determines genocide as the systematic slaughter of a race or ethnic people committed by the government. The Sudan government has stated it does not approve of the Janjaweed's actions. Something needs to be done. The UN report says as much also (source: UN Darfur Report).
Is the USA preventing justice from taking place by its opposition to the ICC?
No. If the US government wants to take matters into their own hands, then fine. We took pre-emptive action against Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's murderous ways. Of course, this brings me to wonder if President Bush even cares. In his 50-minute State of the Union address, he didn't mention Sudan once.
Will anything be done to prevent yet another African slaughter?
No.
And if not why not?
Because nobody really cares about genocide unless it benefits our economy and/or security.
QUOTE(FargoUT @ Feb 5 2005, 08:56 PM)
And if not why not?
Because nobody really cares about genocide unless it benefits our economy and/or security.
I agree with you here, but one could make a very good case that it is in both our economic and security interest to stem the violence in Sudan. Sudan has been a historical Islamic radical magnet, home of the most militant Islamic extremists. It was the birthplace of Al Qaeda, and likely would have followed Afghanistan on the list for invasion if Bashir hadn't turned over lots of information, and arrested Turabi ("spiritual" leader to bin Laden and thousands of other extremists).
Then, there's the oil. The cash generated from the oil has exasperated the violence. The north hoards the oil revenue, and has burned villages, crucified Christians, ect... clearing the land for pipelines in the south, where the oil is. The violence makes those petroleum resources off-limits to us (though not to some other countries).
So again please explain to us how it is the US who is delaying or preventing the ICC from taking action. As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost.
Havent you already advocated the belief that the ICC will not be able to accomplish anything? If that claim is true (which I believe it is), how does useing the UNSC route endanger additional lives?
Havent you already advocated the belief that the ICC will not be able to accomplish anything? If that claim is true (which I believe it is), how does useing the UNSC route endanger additional lives?
QUOTE
Yes and no. The UN determines genocide as the systematic slaughter of a race or ethnic people committed by the government. The Sudan government has stated it does not approve of the Janjaweed's actions.
Obviously they are lying. The UN claims the militias are government backed..and the UN also believes the government is responsible for the recent bombings in Darfur.
UN accuses Sudan of bombing Darfur
The US government does not support these claims either and they too hold the Sudanese government responsible.
I have read some of the UN report and basically the UN argues that Genocide is not taking place because the killings, rapes and forced displacement of these people are not occurring for the intent of genocide but rather as an act of "counter-insurgency warfare." The Un in this report does recognize that these acts of killing for "counter-insurgency warfare" can be committed with genocidal intent but the UN believes that only an international court can make that distinction. The report clearly states and defines these acts as being committed by government officials and militias under government control.
Does this now mean that the UN will now wait for the ICC to convene, argue, try and make judgement on situations such as these before taking action?
Here is a recent news report coming out of Sudan....
Sudan Won't Extradite War Crimes Suspects
QUOTE
Havent you already advocated the belief that the ICC will not be able to accomplish anything? If that claim is true (which I believe it is), how does useing the UNSC route endanger additional lives?
I do believe I asked you a question first.
If many nations wish to await justice being served or something being done in regards to the genocide in Sudan to occur on the stage of the ICC then more lives will be lost. I believe we need to up the AU presence in Sudan and make more demands on the Sudanese government to uphold the peace agreement they signed. The US has been active in the peace process in Sudan and has logistically assisted the AU but we need our allies to assist too. This needs to be an international effort..not an international event.
I do believe I asked you a question first.
I]So again please explain to us how it is the US who is delaying or preventing the ICC from taking action. As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost. [/I]
I do believe you answered your own question.
If many nations wish to await justice being served or something being done in regards to the genocide in Sudan to occur on the stage of the ICC then more lives will be lost. I believe we need to up the AU presence in Sudan and make more demands on the Sudanese government to uphold the peace agreement they signed. The US has been active in the peace process in Sudan and has logistically assisted the AU but we need our allies to assist too. This needs to be an international effort..not an international event.
You have already exhibited a belief that the ICC would not be capable of stoping the violence. If the ICC is useless, then how can delaying (or perhaps even stoping, if the US maintains its opposition) its application result in additional deaths?
I]So again please explain to us how it is the US who is delaying or preventing the ICC from taking action. As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost. [/I]
I do believe you answered your own question.
If many nations wish to await justice being served or something being done in regards to the genocide in Sudan to occur on the stage of the ICC then more lives will be lost. I believe we need to up the AU presence in Sudan and make more demands on the Sudanese government to uphold the peace agreement they signed. The US has been active in the peace process in Sudan and has logistically assisted the AU but we need our allies to assist too. This needs to be an international effort..not an international event.
You have already exhibited a belief that the ICC would not be capable of stoping the violence. If the ICC is useless, then how can delaying (or perhaps even stoping, if the US maintains its opposition) its application result in additional deaths?
A left Handed person...
Are you purposefully trying to confuse the debate?
You are the one who claimed..Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
You have been asked how the ICC is a needed element in imposing international sanctions and you have been asked how the US is delaying the ICC from taking action. You have not answered either of these questions because they simply are not true...they are unanswerable.
My contention is not only that the ICC will have no effect in ending genocide in Sudan..but I have given my own opinion on what will. Perhaps you misunderstand me but really I have no idea what it is you think as you have spun a very confusing argument. Maybe you see my comments claiming nations who await justice to somehow be indicative of what the US will be doing by refusing to back the ICC's involvement on this issue. Yet awaiting justice is not what America has been doing in Sudan she has been actively pursuing it. It was our Colin Powell who signed the newest peace accord in Sudan as a witness ending 21 yrs of civil war. It was America's military that assisted the AU in deployment to Sudan..it is the US military that escorts relief aid ensuring it arrives to it's much needed destinations.
Can any of the nation's who are making the complaint that America is some how preventing justice say the same? No.
When did tribunals end wars?
What will these nation's achieve by seeking to remove America..a major component in the peace process in Sudan..from the process itself? Obviously not something with the people of Sudan's political needs in mind..but instead their own political desires.
Are you purposefully trying to confuse the debate?
You are the one who claimed..Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
You have been asked how the ICC is a needed element in imposing international sanctions and you have been asked how the US is delaying the ICC from taking action. You have not answered either of these questions because they simply are not true...they are unanswerable.
My contention is not only that the ICC will have no effect in ending genocide in Sudan..but I have given my own opinion on what will. Perhaps you misunderstand me but really I have no idea what it is you think as you have spun a very confusing argument. Maybe you see my comments claiming nations who await justice to somehow be indicative of what the US will be doing by refusing to back the ICC's involvement on this issue. Yet awaiting justice is not what America has been doing in Sudan she has been actively pursuing it. It was our Colin Powell who signed the newest peace accord in Sudan as a witness ending 21 yrs of civil war. It was America's military that assisted the AU in deployment to Sudan..it is the US military that escorts relief aid ensuring it arrives to it's much needed destinations.
Can any of the nation's who are making the complaint that America is some how preventing justice say the same? No.
When did tribunals end wars?
What will these nation's achieve by seeking to remove America..a major component in the peace process in Sudan..from the process itself? Obviously not something with the people of Sudan's political needs in mind..but instead their own political desires.
A left Handed person...
Are you purposefully trying to confuse the debate?
You are the one who claimed..Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
Then I hereby rescind that claim. It has been aptly proven-by the other posters here-that I was wrong. I apologize for being confusing. In order to avoid a recurrence of an event of this genre, I will henceforth write down when I feel that I have been proven wrong.
You have been asked how the ICC is a needed element in imposing international sanctions
It is not a needed element. I did construct such a statement, but at that time I was only speculating about what powers the ICC possessed.
and you have been asked how the US is delaying the ICC from taking action. You have not answered either of these questions because they simply are not true...they are unanswerable.
As Quoted from the Thread Starter post:
In return, the UN has stated that it desires to take the case before the ICC, a move which the USA apparently opposes due to its position with regards to the ICC. The EU backs the UN in the matter of the ICC.
As stated in the quote, it is the UN (which is in turn represented by UNSC) that desires to bring the case before the ICC. This places the US in a position to veto any resolution created with the intention of turning over power to the ICC. The ICC itself could attain such authority without the UNSC's permission. However if they intended to do so, then why haven't they?
My contention is not only that the ICC will have no effect in ending genocide in Sudan..but I have given my own opinion on what will. Perhaps you misunderstand me but really I have no idea what it is you think as you have spun a very confusing argument. Maybe you see my comments claiming nations who await justice to somehow be indicative of what the US will be doing by refusing to back the ICC's involvement on this issue. Yet awaiting justice is not what America has been doing in Sudan she has been actively pursuing it. It was our Colin Powell who signed the newest peace accord in Sudan as a witness ending 21 yrs of civil war. It was America's military that assisted the AU in deployment to Sudan..it is the US military that escorts relief aid ensuring it arrives to it's much needed destinations.
Can any of the nation's who are making the complaint that America is some how preventing justice say the same? No.
When did tribunals end wars?
As Quoted from one of your posts:
As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost.
This statement seems to imply that by using questionable methods in their attempt at applying the ICC, the Europeans are allowing more people to die in Sudan. You however have said that the ICC will accomplish nothing. If using the ICC will not save lives, then making its application more difficult will not result in deaths that would have other wise not have occurred.
What will these nation's achieve by seeking to remove America..a major component in the peace process in Sudan..from the process itself? Obviously not something with the people of Sudan's political needs in mind..but instead their own political desires.
The UN is not capable of taking appropriate action in Sudan. China will not allow them to do anything effective, so the UN is forced to maintain good appearances.
Are you purposefully trying to confuse the debate?
You are the one who claimed..Not allowing the ICC to do its work will:
-Delay any sanctions that might occur from the tribunal. This cannot be stressed enough, because during this delay people (who otherwise might have lived) will die.
Then I hereby rescind that claim. It has been aptly proven-by the other posters here-that I was wrong. I apologize for being confusing. In order to avoid a recurrence of an event of this genre, I will henceforth write down when I feel that I have been proven wrong.
You have been asked how the ICC is a needed element in imposing international sanctions
It is not a needed element. I did construct such a statement, but at that time I was only speculating about what powers the ICC possessed.
and you have been asked how the US is delaying the ICC from taking action. You have not answered either of these questions because they simply are not true...they are unanswerable.
As Quoted from the Thread Starter post:
In return, the UN has stated that it desires to take the case before the ICC, a move which the USA apparently opposes due to its position with regards to the ICC. The EU backs the UN in the matter of the ICC.
As stated in the quote, it is the UN (which is in turn represented by UNSC) that desires to bring the case before the ICC. This places the US in a position to veto any resolution created with the intention of turning over power to the ICC. The ICC itself could attain such authority without the UNSC's permission. However if they intended to do so, then why haven't they?
My contention is not only that the ICC will have no effect in ending genocide in Sudan..but I have given my own opinion on what will. Perhaps you misunderstand me but really I have no idea what it is you think as you have spun a very confusing argument. Maybe you see my comments claiming nations who await justice to somehow be indicative of what the US will be doing by refusing to back the ICC's involvement on this issue. Yet awaiting justice is not what America has been doing in Sudan she has been actively pursuing it. It was our Colin Powell who signed the newest peace accord in Sudan as a witness ending 21 yrs of civil war. It was America's military that assisted the AU in deployment to Sudan..it is the US military that escorts relief aid ensuring it arrives to it's much needed destinations.
Can any of the nation's who are making the complaint that America is some how preventing justice say the same? No.
When did tribunals end wars?
As Quoted from one of your posts:
As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost.
This statement seems to imply that by using questionable methods in their attempt at applying the ICC, the Europeans are allowing more people to die in Sudan. You however have said that the ICC will accomplish nothing. If using the ICC will not save lives, then making its application more difficult will not result in deaths that would have other wise not have occurred.
What will these nation's achieve by seeking to remove America..a major component in the peace process in Sudan..from the process itself? Obviously not something with the people of Sudan's political needs in mind..but instead their own political desires.
The UN is not capable of taking appropriate action in Sudan. China will not allow them to do anything effective, so the UN is forced to maintain good appearances.
QUOTE
In return, the UN has stated that it desires to take the case before the ICC, a move which the USA apparently opposes due to its position with regards to the ICC. The EU backs the UN in the matter of the ICC.
As stated in the quote, it is the UN (which is in turn represented by UNSC) that desires to bring the case before the ICC. This places the US in a position to veto any resolution created with the intention of turning over power to the ICC. The ICC itself could attain such authority without the UNSC's permission. However if they intended to do so, then why haven't they?
As stated in the quote, it is the UN (which is in turn represented by UNSC) that desires to bring the case before the ICC. This places the US in a position to veto any resolution created with the intention of turning over power to the ICC. The ICC itself could attain such authority without the UNSC's permission. However if they intended to do so, then why haven't they?
No it is some members of the UN who wish to bring the case to the ICC. As last time I looked the US was not only a member of the UN but of the UNSC as well.
Your last part of your question is exactly what I have asked you I believe now three times. If they feel it is so imperative that they all sit around in a the Hague..enjoying lively debate on whether mass killings, rapes and displacement meant to force starvation is genocide or not..then why don't they get on with it..have a party. Yet what will this accomplish? I will ask you again..since when did tribunals end war? Aren't the ICC proponents getting a little ahead of themselves?
QUOTE
As Quoted from one of your posts:
As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost.
This statement seems to imply that by using questionable methods in their attempt at applying the ICC, the Europeans are allowing more people to die in Sudan. You however have said that the ICC will accomplish nothing. If using the ICC will not save lives, then making its application more difficult will not result in deaths that would have other wise not have occurred.
As I said before it appears to be a situation of European nations purposefully pursuing the UNSC route..even tho it is not the only route available..in order to push their beliefs on the ICC..even if it means more lives in Sudan are lost.
This statement seems to imply that by using questionable methods in their attempt at applying the ICC, the Europeans are allowing more people to die in Sudan. You however have said that the ICC will accomplish nothing. If using the ICC will not save lives, then making its application more difficult will not result in deaths that would have other wise not have occurred.
I already explained my argument on this. I reject the idea COMPLETELY that the ICC will bring peace to Sudan. I am in favor of these nations putting their efforts or their alleged desires for justice into the actual ongoing peace process in Sudan..it is obviously not completed and is in obvious need of full international support. Great we finally got the two main political parties to sit at the table and stop massacring one another and what does the EU wish to do..threaten them with imprisonment. Is this an attempt to sabotage the Sudanese peace process or what exactly?
And I did say European nations..to specify..because I know it is not Europe as a whole..I know exactly who I have in mind when I make my accusations.
This is yet again another trans-atlantic rift and the usual suspects are playing their usual roles. Hopefully Britain will once again show that standing up for the right action is far more important than the EU keeping a strong common foreign policy. As apparently the policy the EU wishes to be strong on is one of complacent indifference.
QUOTE
The UN is not capable of taking appropriate action in Sudan. China will not allow them to do anything effective, so the UN is forced to maintain good appearances.
Must ask why you insist on reiterating this speculative stance of China's when we have already had France stand up and prove to us that she is the one who intends to be the vocal obstruction in the UNSC regarding sanctions on Sudan.
France opposes UN Sudan sanctions
Complete opposition to US policy in Sudan does lie in Europe..not in Asia..stop trying to pull the focus away from what is really happening here.
I just wanted to add a little colorful perspective on a tragic subject from a columnist I enjoy - Mark Steyn, from this Sunday's Chicago Sun Times.
linkage
It's a real shame that UN is not going to act, at least referring it to the Security Council. I hope that Secretary Rice is bending their ear over this during her visit to Europe.
linkage
QUOTE
After months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the U.N. to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide. Phew, thank goodness for that. It turns out it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group; could happen anywhere. But it's not genocide, so don't worry about it.
It's a real shame that UN is not going to act, at least referring it to the Security Council. I hope that Secretary Rice is bending their ear over this during her visit to Europe.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 10 2005, 04:43 PM)
It's a real shame that UN is not going to act, at least referring it to the Security Council. I hope that Secretary Rice is bending their ear over this during her visit to Europe.
Excuse me? What do you mean "their ear"? Last time I checked, the US was not only a member of the UNSC, but a permanent member. If the United Nations have (note the plural) failed to mount any effective intervention in Darfur, the failure belongs to all. The US doesn't get to worm out of it by saying "well, we think it's genocide, but we're too busy to do anything about it, and we really think it'll be a moral failing on the part of everyone else if they refuse to carry the can we're unwilling to carry ourselves."
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.