Darfur Violence Spreads

[rubecube]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15655588/

Yet another prime example on how useless the UN is.

[Looger]

don't worry, the next globalist organization will have more teeth!

problem, reaction, solution - the hegelian dialectic.

see also the league of nations.

as it is the UN, the IMF, and the world bank have major foots in the door of many countries.

when the UN is replaced / upgraded due to 'all of these problems' - 'oh my god we need a global police force with some teeth!' 'save us!' then many will get their wish...

[rubecube]

So your answer to mass genocide is stand pat so as not to offend anyone?

[FlamesAddiction]

Don't blame the UN.

There is a whole confederation of African countries that have asked the UN to stay out. "It's an African problem with an African solution", or so we're told.

The real trajedy here is that most African countries seem content to watch it happen than have the UN take control.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So your answer to mass genocide is stand pat so as not to offend anyone?

nope, i just hope people start REALLY looking at the UN before they decide that they want a more powerful one.

like the UN's stance on property rights of individuals, their financial / big banking elite claws, their powers that have nothing to do with military intervention.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Don't blame the UN.

There is a whole confederation of African countries that have asked the UN to stay out. "It's an African problem with an African solution", or so we're told.

The real trajedy here is that most African countries seem content to watch it happen than have the UN take control.

Clearly the African solution is not much of solution. Someone needs to step in.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Clearly the African solution is not much of solution. Someone needs to step in.

I agree, the African solution is lame. But what can the UN do if none of the countries in the region want the UN there?

As Looger was getting at, do we really want a global military with unilateral power making decisions for every other country?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree, the African solution is lame. But what can the UN do if none of the countries in the region want the UN there?

As Looger was getting at, do we really want a global military with unilateral power making decisions for every other country?

We already have one...and it's headed by a chimp.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Don't blame the UN.

There is a whole confederation of African countries that have asked the UN to stay out. "It's an African problem with an African solution", or so we're told.

The real trajedy here is that most African countries seem content to watch it happen than have the UN take control.

From what I've heard, the AU is campaigning to get the mission transfered to a UN mission (with the AU forces still making up a significant amount of the mission), but because the UNSC is unwilling to go in without Sudan's consent, the AU has had to repeatedly extend its mandate. Maybe I'm only hearing part of the story, but I haven't heard anything from the AU saying they don't want the UN's involvement.

[icarus]

First of all, the spread of the conflict to Chad is nothing new; it has been that way for almost a year. The spread of Khartoum-sponsored violence to the Central African Republic is more recent, but not noted in this article.

As for not blaming the UN, why on earth not? What is this whole confederation of African countries who are opposed to UN intervention? I can't imagine that African nations would be tacit in the face of regional destabilisation and genocide against black Africans by Arab militias. Octothorp is right, the AU is pretty eager for the UN to step in because at the moment the AU force is so piddly and without mandate to intervene that it just gets mocked by the janjaweed militias.

The parties who most strongly support Khartoum's refusal of UN intervention are the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference, but most importantly Russia and China (who has vast oil concessions in Sudan). Couple that with a general reluctance for the international community to enter into another forcible conflict against an Islamic force and you have a huge hill to climb to convince the UN to save a region with no strategic value. Clearly human rights and the Responsibility to Protect alone are not sufficient reasons for the UN to intervene.

The UN won't intervene in Darfur (neither will NATO, which could potentially deflect attention from the UN's inadequacy) and it will be the organisation's undoing, in my opinion.

It really is a ****ing joke.

[Agamemnon]

Its a shame the Sudanese government won't allow the UN to intervene. The UNSC passed a resolution allowing for around 20,000 UN personnel to go to Darfur. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8821.doc.htm

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Its a shame the Sudanese government won't allow the UN to intervene. The UNSC passed a resolution allowing for around 20,000 UN personnel to go to Darfur. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8821.doc.htm

According to the Responsibility to Protect protocol that was unanimously adopted by the UN at the 60th General Assembly, you don't need permission to intervene against widespread violations of human rights on a gross scale. To hell with the Sudanese government.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by icarus

According to the Responsibility to Protect protocol that was unanimously adopted by the UN at the 60th General Assembly, you don't need permission to intervene against widespread violations of human rights on a gross scale. To hell with the Sudanese government.

I can easily see why the UN wouldn't want to go into a place that doesn't want them. I understand that when someone needs help you shouldn't need the bully's permission to get involved, but the countries that would be capable of getting involved in Sudan don't want to. I'm not sure why one would blame the UN when its really the 10-15 states that would actually be contributing 99% of the resources who don't want to get involved. The UN isn't a unilateral organization, its mandate and will is only as strong as its key members on the UNSC. If these member-states don't have the will to go in the UN can't do anything about that.

If blame needs to be issued I think it should be confined to the Sudanese government, the states that support the Sudanese government, and the states that could intervene, but choose not to. Its not like 'the UN doesn't want to get involved', they can only act under mandates given to them by the UNSC. Talk to the P5 members if you don't like the way the UNSC has its hands tied.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by octothorp

From what I've heard, the AU is campaigning to get the mission transfered to a UN mission (with the AU forces still making up a significant amount of the mission), but because the UNSC is unwilling to go in without Sudan's consent, the AU has had to repeatedly extend its mandate. Maybe I'm only hearing part of the story, but I haven't heard anything from the AU saying they don't want the UN's involvement.

The AMIS is already a UN sanctioned mission. If the AU wants to increase their forces, then they are more than welcome to. NATO has already pledged logistical support, and the EU has offered financial support.

The problem is that the more powerful countries in Africa (S. Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, and Libya), will not do their part.

And UN soldiers from Europe and North America aren't exactly welcome. The UN is seen by many Africans as a construct of the same colonial powers that messed up the continent to begin with.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If blame needs to be issued I think it should be confined to the Sudanese government, the states that support the Sudanese government, and the states that could intervene, but choose not to. Its not like 'the UN doesn't want to get involved', they can only act under mandates given to them by the UNSC. Talk to the P5 members if you don't like the way the UNSC has its hands tied.

Well yes by blaming the UN for its failure to intervene I am implicitly referring to the Security Council. That goes without saying. I also blame Jan Pronk and Kofi Annan for allowing the UN to shrink away from Security Council Resolution 1706. The UN has its hands tied by its permanent members, but it is now also proving inept to enforce its own GA and SC resolutions.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The AMIS is already a UN sanctioned mission. If the AU wants to increase their forces, then they are more than welcome to. NATO has already pledged logistical support, and the EU has offered financial support.

The problem is that the more powerful countries in Africa (S. Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, and Libya), will not do their part.

NATO and the EU provide no support to the African Union force. AMIS has an extremely limited mandate, and has proven it is unable or in some cases unwilling to exercise even the mandate it already has. Even if more forces were agreed to and evenutally deployed, it would likely still be inadequate to stop the genocide.

And I don't know why you criticise South Africa for not doing its part. It is one of the major players in AMIS, as well as being devoted to missions in the DRC and the Great Lakes. The greatest criticism against Mbeki is that he cares more about the rest of Africa than he does for his own country. And South Africa has argued that the AU is insufficient, that the UN must step in.

NATO has had the chance to intervene as they did in Kosovo and decided against it.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And UN soldiers from Europe and North America aren't exactly welcome. The UN is seen by many Africans as a construct of the same colonial powers that messed up the continent to begin with.

The vast majority of UN soldiers come from Asia and Africa, not Europe and North America.

Regardless of how the UN is viewed in Africa, at this stage most would welcome a UN intervention to prevent the ongoing genocide, mass displacement and regional destabilisation.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by icarus

Well yes by blaming the UN for its failure to intervene I am implicitly referring to the Security Council. That goes without saying. I also blame Jan Pronk and Kofi Annan for allowing the UN to shrink away from Security Council Resolution 1706. The UN has its hands tied by its permanent members, but it is now also proving inept to enforce its own GA and SC resolutions.

Thats pretty much where I'm at. Its not the UN's fault intervention isn't happening, its the fault of the major players on the UNSC. If Russia, China, France, UK, and USA all got on the same page and committed to intervention, with or without the approval of the Sudanese government, then it would happen. Because these 5 states don't want to get involved, nothing will happen. It would be nice to make the UNSC more effective, but while the major powers have vetoes, it's hands get tied. If one wants to criticize the UNSC thats fair enough, as long as they realize they're tacitly criticizing these 5 major powers. The UN doesn't make decisions, the member-states make decisions.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by icarus

NATO and the EU provide no support to the African Union force. AMIS has an extremely limited mandate, and has proven it is unable or in some cases unwilling to exercise even the mandate it already has. Even if more forces were agreed to and evenutally deployed, it would likely still be inadequate to stop the genocide.

They have provided support...

http://www.nato.int/issues/darfur/index.html

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=956〈=EN

http://www.afrika.no/Detailed/6460.html