Sudan massacres are not genocide, says EU

[5stringJeff]

The EU is as worthless as the UN. Is it any wonder that when somebody wants something done, they call the US?

---------------------
Sudan massacres are not genocide, says EU
Rory Carroll, Africa correspondent
Tuesday August 10, 2004
The Guardian

The EU said yesterday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.
"We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan.

"But it is clear there is widespread, silent and slow killing and village burning of a fairly large scale. There are considerable doubts as to the willingness of Sudan's government to assume its duty to protect its civilian population against attacks."

He said in the absence of willingness to send a significant military force, the EU and others had little choice but to cooperate with Khartoum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1279835,00.html

 

[nakedemperor]

Arrogant jingoism aside, why is the U.N. worthless?


Also, in reference to both that and "10/10 terrorists agree: Anyone but Bush"... all I can say to that is summed up here pretty well:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040711

 

[Annie]

Arrogant jingoism aside, why is the U.N. worthless?

It's neither arrogant, nor jingoistic. They have proven themselves to be not only corrupt in a way that makes Enron pale in comparison, they are truly impotent in dealing with crisis.

 

[DKSuddeth]

the current setup of the UN does nothing but provide an expensive meeting place for the nations ambassadors. they refuse to move on anything necessary and when they DO decide, they oftentimes can't realistically do anything about their decision.

 

[5stringJeff]

If the UN was a reliable international body, it would have already moved into Sudan to stop the genocidal actions of the Sudanese government. Instead, they sit around and debate whether or not it's really "genocide" or just "mass murder." Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people who need protection are slaughtered.

The UN does not do anything worthwhile. Aside from being one big world embassy, I fail to see its relevance.

 

[nakedemperor]

Truly impotent in dealing with a crisis...or not willing to back U.S. aggression in the Middle East? Or truly impotent compared to how big the president's genitals look in the flight suit he wore on that aircraft carrier?

 

[HGROKIT]

Truly impotent in dealing with a crisis...or not willing to back U.S. aggression in the Middle East? Or truly impotent compared to how big the president's genitals look in the flight suit he wore on that aircraft carrier?

Don't they miss you over at Yahoo!?

 

[Said1]

Truly impotent in dealing with a crisis...or not willing to back U.S. aggression in the Middle East? Or truly impotent compared to how big the president's genitals look in the flight suit he wore on that aircraft carrier?

Sudan is not in the Middle East, wrong side of the gulf.

 

[Merlin1047]

Truly impotent in dealing with a crisis...or not willing to back U.S. aggression in the Middle East? Or truly impotent compared to how big the president's genitals look in the flight suit he wore on that aircraft carrier?

 

[5stringJeff]

Truly impotent in dealing with a crisis...or not willing to back U.S. aggression in the Middle East? Or truly impotent compared to how big the president's genitals look in the flight suit he wore on that aircraft carrier?

Truly impotent in the fact that the UN is supported, both in money and troops, primarily by the US.

Truly impotent in the fact that UN troops literally sat and watched Rwandans get slaughtered 10 years ago - yet did nothing.

Truly impotent in the fact that the UN will not commit troops to any cause without the US's insistence.

Truly impotent in that France, a 19th century power with a moderate-sized economy, still has veto power, while other more populous countries (in order: India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, Germany, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, Iran and Thailand) are not given such veto power.

 

[drac]

Why are you guys so upset. We all knew it would happen. First it is in africa. Second no resources or potential for profit. Very little affect on the stability of adjancent countries and will not spill over. It is muslim on muslim violence and since even arab/muslim League and un block do not want to be involved and want to "wait and see". Any action against muslim arabs will be declared by AQ and CO as attack against islamic world (even though it is to save muslims)

Why would EU all the sudden develop a backbone? The number of dead is less than 1 mil, i think, so it is not up to UN or EU standards.

 

[5stringJeff]

Why are you guys so upset. We all knew it would happen. First it is in africa.

So Africa matters less to the UN than other countries? Better tell those countries so they can pull out of the UN.

Second no resources or potential for profit. Very little affect on the stability of adjancent countries and will not spill over. It is muslim on muslim violence and since even arab/muslim League and un block do not want to be involved and want to "wait and see". Any action against muslim arabs will be declared by AQ and CO as attack against islamic world (even though it is to save muslims)

No potential for profit... so we should only stop genocide if we can make money on it?!? If so, why did we go into Bosnia and Kosovo? And it is not Muslim on Muslim violence. Most of the oppressed in this decade-long war are Christians and animists in the Sudanese south.

Why would EU all the sudden develop a backbone? The number of dead is less than 1 mil, i think, so it is not up to UN or EU standards.

My point is that the EU and UN are not reliable organizations. Anytime someone is serious about something, they call the US because they know that we are the only ones who will get off our asses and work.

 

[Said1]

No potential for profit... so we should only stop genocide if we can make money on it?!?

Actually, there is third party invested interest in the billions (by Americans alone) made for the purpose of development and exploration of potential resources.

Very little affect on the stability of adjancent countries and will not spill over.

The countries surrounding Sudan are already unstable, and the effects of this are very far reaching considering the criss crossing terrorists do between the Horn of Africa and the ME. Can't you think of any potential problems civil conflict can create when the entire Northern part of a single continent are getting more unstable each passing week.

 

[drac]

So Africa matters less to the UN than other countries? Better tell those countries so they can pull out of the UN.

Tell them? hm... ok i am telling (shrug). And yes imho, judging by UN actions not much is done to help many africans countries. Currently we have a lot crap going in there and where is UN? So if you look at the history of UN and africa, i feel that it is being ignored or un takes "wait and see" position.

No potential for profit... so we should only stop genocide if we can make money on it?!? If so, why did we go into Bosnia and Kosovo? And it is not Muslim on Muslim violence. Most of the oppressed in this decade-long war are Christians and animists in the Sudanese south.

Please do not combine points, hard to debate.
1. Profit. I should take this back, since sudan does have oil. Still, it is not saudi.
2. Bosnia - almost center of europe. The conflict could of spill in the surroundig countries. Kosovo - i believe it was nato, not un, and i am not sure why. (btw i assume by we you mean un, not usa)
3. Very true about south. Current conflict described in this thread is regarding Dafour region, if i am not mistaken, most of population are muslim.

My point is that the EU and UN are not reliable organizations. Anytime someone is serious about something, they call the US because they know that we are the only ones who will get off our asses and work.

i agree with it being not reliable, comes from its democratic status. Not sure if they call usa all the time, perhapse, was not following all the conflicts. But for sure we will not get involve all the time just cause we are asked by un

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Regime change is beginning to rumble in DC.....they had better get it under control over there, or the Wyoming State police will be sent in to calm the situation.

(a tip of the hat to Otto von Bismarck who once scoffed that if the British were to land their army on the Baltic coast, he would send in the Berlin police to go arrest them)

 

[drac]

Actually, there is third party invested interest in the billions (by Americans alone) made for the purpose of development and exploration of potential resources.

I was wrong in my original commet. Sudan does have some oil and some resources. My bad.

The countries surrounding Sudan are already unstable, and the effects of this are very far reaching considering the criss crossing terrorists do between the Horn of Africa and the ME. Can't you think of any potential problems civil conflict can create when the entire Northern part of a single continent are getting more unstable each passing week.

The current conflict does not affect most of surrounding countries. I believe only Chad is affect with refuge problem, but it is not an unstable cituation.

 

[Said1]

I was wrong in my original commet. Sudan does have some oil and some resources. My bad.

The current conflict does not affect most of surrounding countries. I believe only Chad is affect with refuge problem, but it is not an unstable cituation.

It doesn't affect them directly, but the coastal areas (especially Djibouti) are crucial to a large part of Africa's economy. Instability in and around the coastal areas causes large trade problems for both Africa and the Middle East. I know this is a result of conflict, but it's still bad for everyone.

 

[freeandfun1]

It doesn't affect them directly, but the coastal areas (especially Djibouti) are crucial to a large part of Africa's economy. Instability in and around the coastal areas causes large trade problems for both Africa and the Middle East. I know this is a result of conflict, but it's still bad for everyone.

In my opinion, it is important, as Sudan is another breading ground for radical terrorists. I believe our interests are not in "saving" the country, but in preventing the rise or more radical Islamics.

 

[Said1]

In my opinion, it is important, as Sudan is another breading ground for radical terrorists. I believe our interests are not in "saving" the country, but in preventing the rise or more radical Islamics.

Yes, and this is becoming more apparent as time passes. The Sudanese government supported bin Lauden, can it get any clearer than that?

 

[drac]

Yes, and this is becoming more apparent as time passes. The Sudanese government supported bin Lauden, can it get any clearer than that?

Agree with both of you on this, but for that you need to have a backbone and be able to see into the future