[quote]“The US has done more than anyone else in Darfur, and the Bush administration has done more than any other administration about Sudan,” says Nina Shea of the human-rights group Freedom House. The US has pledged nearly $200 million in aid to the region. The EU so far is kicking in a little more than $10 million - from all 25 countries in the EU combined. It is the US that is pushing hard for a tough UN Security Council resolution that will call on the Sudanese government to end its support for violence and allow aid to flow into Darfur. This is consistent with the administration’s history of involvement in Sudan.
There as yet is no “CNN effect” in Darfur, the sense of urgency that comes from international media attention. … The Muslim world has reserved its outrage for the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, even though a spoonful of the same condemnation applied to Sudan could help save hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives. As for the UN, it recently welcomed Sudan onto the UN Human Rights Commission, where, with China and Cuba, it will have lots of nasty company.
Unfortunately, Sudan doesn’t make natural fodder for Bush-bashers, or we might hear more about the issue. For the President’s critics the word “diplomacy” means one thing - strong-arm Israel. And “multilateralism” tends to mean only appeasing France. So the administration’s diplomatic achievement in Sudan might as well not exist, and its effort to muster other international actors, from the UN to Europe, behind a multilateral diplomatic and humanitarian aid initiative in Darfur is ignored. I n this case, cries of “blood for oil” would have to be directed at China, which is obstructing diplomatic pressure on Sudan because of its oil business there ?so, predictably, there are simply no cries of “blood for oil.” [/quote]
Is the UN not a completely worthless collection of corrupt thieves?
Will the Europeans EVER agree to a multinational effort? I mean, they cried that the US should have built a multinational coalition to deal with Saddam… yet, here, when a new multinational effort is encouraged, one that has no special benefit to the US, the EU and the UN prove their worth once again. Worthless.
How many total prisoners were “tortured” (Read: abused) in Abu Ghraib? and how many millions have died of starvation in both the Sudan and North Korea with silence from the Left?
And where is Rascal shrieking about international law. Sudan, China and Cuba ALL on the UN human rights commission? How could that be? What’s up with that? Where is the outrage? hahahaa Rascal? Oh Rascal?
Rascal:
Yes, I care about the deaths in Sudan and I don’t agree with Cuba, China and Sudan being on the UN human rights commission but that does not mean the George Bush is right or good. Despite the UN approval of the US occupation of Iraq, that does not mean the Bush is or was right to invade and where are those wmds that we the Germans sold him? I mean er that the US has failed to find so far…
Right Rascal?
Tigerman and Fred,
The EU won’t help in Sudan because helping there doesn’t give them the opportunity to bash the US.
EU foreign policy consists of two things:
1.) Promotion of self interests no matter the cost.
2.) Thwarting the US at every turn.
The Sudan fulfills neither of these briefs.
TM
In general i am inclined to agree with you, but it is a double edged sword. When the US has made it quite clear that it is prepared to do what it wants, when it wants, with or without international agreement, then where is the incentive for the International Community to get invloved in anything when at any point in time the US is going to do what it wants.
[quote=“Traveller”]TM
When the US has made it quite clear that it is prepared to do what it wants, when it wants, with or without international agreement, then where is the incentive for the International Community to get invloved in anything when at any point in time the US is going to do what it wants.[/quote]
That’s a rather poor excuse. You won’t help the Sudan because the US can do anything it wants. Copout 
Traveller:
Disagree with your conclusions. The US went to the UN to try to get a resolution. France and Germany never bothered when they wanted (demanded) the US do something about Bosnia and Kosovo. What’s the difference?
So what’s the answer? What should we do? Go in there and install democracy and Christianity?
You are asking for the answer for the wrong question. The question is why aren’t these folks who are hollering about Iraq hollering about real injustices in the world?
[quote=“Traveller”]TM
In general I am inclined to agree with you, but it is a double edged sword. When the US has made it quite clear that it is prepared to do what it wants, when it wants, with or without international agreement, then where is the incentive for the International Community to get invloved in anything when at any point in time the US is going to do what it wants.[/quote]
Its true that the US has made such intention clear. However, it is also true, that despite this intention, the US did go to the UN and seek a broad coalition. The UN refused to enforce its own resolutions. At the time, those opposed to the US plan of action could claim that they simply opposed the use of force. However, after the revelations regarding corruption in the UN in connection with the oil for food program, and with what we now know re the various interests that some of the more vocal opponents to resolution enforcement had/have in the region, such opposition appears rather lame.
And your conclusion above doesn’t explain why the UN and or EU are not helping in the Sudan now. We know that China has oil interests in the Sudan… but what of the EU? As an American, I find it extremely discouraging to listen to EU calls for broad multilateral cooperation in dealing with problems in the world and then to see only a broad reluctance on the part of the EU and UN to lift even just a finger to assist where assistance is clearly needed.
Rwanda was just ten years ago. Does anyone remember the statements that came from the UN after the UN failure was discussed then? What gives?
Is the UN really only an entity that gives the world a venue and a tool in which and with which to oppose the US? What else is the UN good for?
You are asking for the answer for the wrong question. The question is why aren’t these folks who are hollering about Iraq hollering about real injustices in the world?[/quote]
This is one of those “boo fucking hoo” things then?
You are asking for the answer for the wrong question. The question is why aren’t these folks who are hollering about Iraq hollering about real injustices in the world?[/quote]
This is one of those “boo fucking hoo” things then?[/quote]
I’m not sure…let me think about it. 
[quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“Traveller”]TM
When the US has made it quite clear that it is prepared to do what it wants, when it wants, with or without international agreement, then where is the incentive for the International Community to get invloved in anything when at any point in time the US is going to do what it wants.[/quote]
That’s a rather poor excuse. You won’t help the Sudan because the US can do anything it wants. Copout [/quote]
DB, i had already said that in general i agreed with TM, so how can my further response be a copout, all it was meant to do was to try and provide some logic as to why the majority of EU countries do not seem prepared to take on an appropriate level of responsibility, with the exception of the UK of course.
Fred, again in general i would agree, but then two wrongs do not make a right, if the more senior nations of the world feel that they can act in ways with little if any real reaction other than verbal then the place for an organisation of the likes of the UN has been removed. The UN has been marginalised by many of those senior nations for many a year, whether politically or by more corrupt means.
TM, personally i think the UN is a dead organisation, it has lost what credibility it had.
You are asking for the answer for the wrong question. The question is why aren’t these folks who are hollering about Iraq hollering about real injustices in the world?[/quote]
This is one of those “boo fucking hoo” things then?[/quote]
Boo-Fucking-Hoo
Sadly, this is because the US has made it so. Fails to pay its dues, vetoes every perceived anti-Israeli resoltion it can and behaves like a spoiled brat when the UN doesn’t do what the US wants. The UN is a noble organisation eroded by the power hungry imperialist scum pig dog infidel retarded deceitful corrupt dysfuntional US maladministration.
Does Bush know where Darfur is? Doubt it. Too bloody thick.
hahaha Why did the US refuse to pay its dues Broon Ale? Do you know? I was an intern at the UN when this happened. Would you like me to tell you? Margaret Thatcher refused also for the same reasons. We also had support from the governments of Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan during that episode.
Love Fred
[quote=“fred smith”]hahaha Why did the US refuse to pay its dues Broon Ale? Do you know? I was an intern at the UN when this happened. Would you like me to tell you? Margaret Thatcher refused also for the same reasons. We also had support from the governments of Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan during that episode.
Love Fred[/quote]
Don’t ever mention the name of that woman in front of or within a 1000 mile radius of me again.
:fume:
BroonArthurScargill
The (Arab) Janjaweed militia is perpetrating genocide in Darfur and should be pounded back into the Stone Age where they belong.
Who shall volunteer to make the effort? I nominate the Germans and French with Russian military support. How about that?
freddie
I would suggest that some muslim nations should also send forces to show that they do indeed care about their fellow muslims and not just there fellow arab muslims