kams

More than 200,000 killed and 2.5 million in refuge camps and UN is waiting for an invitation from Sudan Govt. to intervene. This reluctance to take proactive steps to prevent further loss of human life is criminal. In 2004 US House of Representatives passed a resolution calling Darfur tragedy a 'Genocide' and asked the administration to consider 'Multilateral or even Unilateral' action to end this genocide.

Sudan-genocide

Death toll in Darfur - more than stated

Bush frustrated by UB inaction

Washington chides allies on Darfur crisis

Washington - The United States chided its allies on Thursday for not doing more to force Sudan to accept the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers in its war-torn Darfur region.

Is UN is fast becoming irrelevant? If the member states can not act to resolve such a genocide what can we expect from them?

FOG3

I'm of the opinion the UN is working to resolve it, that is to say they're complicit in this genocide that will be resolved when the Darfuris are all dead. I'm not saying that just because they're sitting around twiddling their thumbs, I'm calling them on it because of their campaign to disarm the victims. They aren't protecting the Serbian churches from being burned, despite their promises, after going into Kosovo on less then solid premises.

Have these guys _ever_ done anything that actually justified their existence?

gunnut

UN is very good at monitoring elections, distribute disaster relief, and combating infectious diseases.

UN is useless at dealing with thugs, bullies, strongmen, dictators, despot, and thieves.

I was watching the news lastnight and CNN did this piece on George Clooney. I have to say my opinion of him just went up by 2 notches after I saw him walking into the UN, demanded to speak, and was allowed to address the general assembly on the Darfur matter. He chastised the UN about the inaction and flatly told them the bloodshed in Darfur is on their hands.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

kams

To be fair, UN is its member states. However there should be some mechanism to act on this kind of mass genocide without going through endless debates. Look the resolution passed last month, it requires invitation of Sudanese govt. Sudanese Govt. is the problem.

It's two years back US house of representatives passed a resolution calling for Multilateral or Unilateral action. Worlds major powers such as US, Europe, China, India etc have a collective responsibility to protect these poor people.

The Wold-body by its failure to act is commiting a crime against humanity. Failure to discharge ones duty is also a crime.

kams

Intresting site on Darfur.
Global day for darfur

September 17 is the Global Day for Darfur.

Officer of Engineers

Like it or not, the UN is their only hope. No one else is stepping up, not the US, not Europe, not the West.

They're watching and reporting and remembering.

KFOR is a NATO force under UN authorization, it is not a UN force. And we're too busy protecting civilians to worry about a piece of rock and wood. If the civilians stay, then the church is protected. If they leave, we ain't going to stick around to protect a building no one wants.

The Korean War, UNPROFOR, the Kuwait War.

As for Dufar, why us? Why is the world waiting for us? Nigeria, Chad, Eygpt, South Africa, each could do the job by themselves. Why do they have to wait for the UN to do the right thing?

__________________
Chimo

Ray

I heard Dr Wiesel, the Nobel Laureate, address the UNSC on Darfur.

Real powerful!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

There is a good reason.

When the Europeans or the Americans interceded (as a part or not as a part of the UN), there is a "weight" to enforcing the peace.

Few quibble about the errors or violations of European or American armies. They raise the roof when it is non white. And I am not be a racist. Only a pragmatist.

If Bosnia was enforced by non whites, there would have been verbal mayhem from the world. If Iraq was fought by a non white nation, there would be sanctions and what not on that country.

Remember General Nambiar?

That is the reality of life.

Unfortunate, but the reality nevertheless!

The white mans burden is fine.

Anon

Why should we?

All it will get us is attacked there too.

Officer of Engineers

I don't know why the but actions do not match rhetoric. Why is the US Congress demanding action?

Anon

You got me by the short curlies...maybe Rummy told them we can do it with 174 troops.

We are already involved in one Muslim civil war. I think it wise we win it before we get involved in another.(and to be honest, the next one should be Iran)

But eh, maybe that's just me...

Officer of Engineers

Two civil wars. You forgot Afghanistan.

When you look deep into it, it's all rhetoric and no substance. Until the UNSC declares a genocide, the US is not bound to act no matter what the government of the US says.

And again, there is no action. No one is even looking for a lead nation. Canada was asked by the UN to head the Congo mission. No one is stepping up. No one is looking for people to step up. Even if the US is not interested in leading such a mission, they can be more than persuasive to any number of African countries to take up the cause. No one is doing so.

kams

Ok why US or Europe? Simply because you have the clout to get UN mooving. Without US/Europe support countries like South Africa/ Egypt etc have no chance getting any resolution approved. In case of Darfur, even China/Russia may agree to go with you guys. Once you guys get the resolution passed, then other countries will contribute the troups. World is not looking for military intervention from US/Europe, but political and diplomatic intervention to ensure Blue helmets are deployed in Darfur. 45% of current UN peacekeeping force across the world come from Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Nepal.

I do agree that countries in immediate region should take responsibility to resolve the conflict. South Africa, Egypt, Libya have the capability to do so, but I am not sure about the political will.

Confed999

You mean like how they moved on Iraq?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

kams

No.You can not compare Darfur to Iraq. I believe any intervention in Darfur will truly qualify as action for preserving Humanity. At the same time I do not think USA should send its forces to Darfur, as these AQ gang will soon turn it in to Jihad.

Funny, how come we don't hear a single word condemning Darfur from Muslim community. Is it because Arabs are killing Muslims? Lat me look it up on google.