U.S will blame U.N for failure in Sudan


Jersay
#1
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Efforts to stop atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region are unraveling, with a new peacekeeping force uncertain, relief aid under attack and U.N. sanctions stymied, U.N. officials and analysts say.

ADVERTISEMENT

"The situation is spiraling downward on the ground and retreating backwards on a daily basis in New York, Washington and Brussels," home of NATO, said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group think tank.

"A fragile consensus has collapsed under the weight of the Sudan government's artful diplomacy campaign," Prendergast told Reuters. "It played chicken with the broad international community, and once again the international community drove off the road."

The main bulwark against abuses is the cash-strapped African Union which, under pressure from its Arab members who often side with Khartoum, is hesitating to merge its 7,000 troops with a U.N. force.

AU Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare recently presented options to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Among them was a U.N. peacekeeping mission. But Konare also suggested that the AU take command or at least work side by side with U.N. troops. Such solutions would doom a unified operation, said a top U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

'HALF MEASURES'

Prendergast believes the Bush administration needs to send a special envoy to Arab nations and AU members, from Egypt to South Africa, to convince them the United Nations or NATO, which has been suggested as augmenting a U.N. force, was not trying to take over the country.

Sudan has not consented to an enlarged military operation, refused a Darfur visit by the U.N. humanitarian coordinator, Jan Egeland, a Norwegian, and then banned the Norwegian Refugee Council that cared for 90,000 people driven from their homes.

"The situation continues to deteriorate," said Juan Mendez, Annan's envoy for the prevention of genocide.

"We have engaged in half measures and those half measures have not been sufficient to protect and show signs of unraveling," Mendez, an Argentine human rights lawyer, told a news conference.

He said Sudan had "played games," like refusing to give the AU jet fuel, banning it from importing armored personnel carriers or allowing non-African trainers to join them.

The Darfur conflict erupted in early 2003 when mostly non-Arab tribes took up arms accusing the Arab-dominated Khartoum government of neglect.

The government retaliated by arming mainly Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, who began a campaign of murder, rape, arson and plunder that drove 2 million villagers into squalid camps. Khartoum denies responsibility.

Meanwhile, rebel groups proliferated, spreading more misery.

Mendez and others hope for an AU ceasefire deal that could be verified and perhaps be signed by April 30. Still, he says the mandate of the AU has to be strengthened because people often have to be "suffering right under the nose of the AU forces before they can act."

'PARTICIPATION IN GENOCIDE'

The United States is outspoken. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has said he believes "with a high degree of certainty that the Sudan government has been involved in and indeed directing things like gross abuses of human rights and participation in the genocide."

But he said Washington had to check evidence before the United States could agree to put any Sudanese government official on a U.N. list of sanctions that include a travel ban and an assets freeze.

Russia and China oppose all sanctions, even though the Security Council called for them in a resolution a year ago.

But most agree that U.S. or NATO troops cannot enter Darfur as a unit without attracting Islamic militants. However, individual NATO members could help with logistics and air cover.

Jan Pronk, the U.N. envoy for Sudan, warned that any mention of NATO was a red flag to Muslims. "Western diplomacy is indeed extremely foolish at the moment," he said.

Prendergast agreed. "What we (U.S.) have done, is undertaken diplomacy through public assertions that tend to alienate everyone," but without having a military strategy.

If all fails, Prendergast predicted, the United States will blame the United Nations, the Europeans and the Africans while Khartoum ensures "that none of the stated objectives of our policy are actually implemented."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060409/...NlYwN5bmNhdA--

They were the ones' who have been f*ing around getting on Sudan's and other Arab nations and AU nerves in tghe region with that idiot Bolton yapping to his buddies like he does about Iran.

So they will try to fault everyone else when they never had a plan in the first place, just like Iraq, and probably like Iran and North Korea. What a great nation we have running the world, or so it pretends to believe.
 
Toro
#2
So its always Americas fault. When America intervenes somewhere, they're bad. When they don't intervene, they're bad.

Last year while the genocide was occuring, the UN was busy debating whether or not if the term "genocide" was applicable to Sudan.
 
cortezzz
#3
yeah

like when the US says that the UN failed in its Rwanda mission--
failing to mention that it was the US-- and i believe the UK -- in the UN-- that vetoed any action there by the UN.

carefull jersay you might be accused of being antiamerican
 
I think not
#4
The US didn't do anything to prevent troops from being sent into Rwanda, it was cold blooded apathy on the part of the US, and the world.
 
Toro
#5
But you guys want it both ways.

If it is so important, send Canadian troops over there.
 
Jersay
#6
I don't really care if someone calls me Anti-American, I am not scaried of America.

Now, American France and the U.K are to blame for the genocide in Rwanda. And every single person that watched in on the t.v because we were to lazy to stop it.

And Toro there is talk of forming a U.N mission with Canadian troops.

And America wants to be the 'world policer' then do your bloody job or just sit back and shut your borders and shut up and let the U.N deal with matters.

Because it is the U.S and its rhetoric that has stalled the U.N mission. Bolton the idiot and his big mouth.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#7
The entire U.N., every nation that was a part of it during Rwanda is to blame, Canada included. I know we tried to help, but we as one of the 8 top nations of the World, didn't do enough.

With regard to Dafur, yes Canada is thinking of sending troops to Dafur, in fact the 3rd Battalion PPCLI is on the block to go. However there is a strong debate right now going on in Land Force Western Area (LFWA) on whether or not we should go under the U.N. To date there's a wide-spread negative response to wearing the blue beret. As i'm on the block to go SOMEWHERE after this summer, whether it be Dafur, or back to 'Ghan, i'm watching this closely.
 
Toro
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

I don't really care if someone calls me Anti-American, I am not scaried of America.

Now, American France and the U.K are to blame for the genocide in Rwanda. And every single person that watched in on the t.v because we were to lazy to stop it.

And Toro there is talk of forming a U.N mission with Canadian troops.

And America wants to be the 'world policer' then do your bloody job or just sit back and shut your borders and shut up and let the U.N deal with matters.

Because it is the U.S and its rhetoric that has stalled the U.N mission. Bolton the idiot and his big mouth.

America doesn't want to be the world policeman Jersay. That's the point. It wants to act in its interests. What interests does America have in Rwanda?

That's not to excuse the failure of Rwanda. However, you are very quick to blame America first. Blame Canada first. Castigate Canadians first for neglecting you in the military. What's to stop Canada from intervening in genocide? Why do you need a corrupt institution like the UN to give you the green light? If Canada wants to go around intervening in disputes, go for it. But don't blame others for not doing the same when Canada's armed forces are so small that it can barely do anything.
 
Canadian with a hyphen
#9
The U.N is so corrupt itself anyway...
and .. again , why didn't we send canadian troops to Rwanada?
Because...
We canadians are good at blaming the US for everything...
we brag about anti-americanism... it became a fashion for some Canadians.
What is up with the Anti-Americanism anyway?
don't you guys see that there is a big threat that faces Canada as much as the US... or you guys think that we are in the good books of terrorists ,We are not...
They are just using Canada as a stepping stone to the US.
 
Johnny Utah
#10
The blame for Sudan rests on Kofi"UNSCAM"Annan's shoulders.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

I don't really care if someone calls me Anti-American, I am not scaried of America.

Now, American France and the U.K are to blame for the genocide in Rwanda. And every single person that watched in on the t.v because we were to lazy to stop it.

And Toro there is talk of forming a U.N mission with Canadian troops.

And America wants to be the 'world policer' then do your bloody job or just sit back and shut your borders and shut up and let the U.N deal with matters.

Because it is the U.S and its rhetoric that has stalled the U.N mission. Bolton the idiot and his big mouth.

What BS!

Directly responsible for preventing D'Allaire from taking action to prevent the Rwandan genocide were Kofi Annan, then head of peacekeeping, and the Canadian General (Baril) that commanded peacekeeping operations of the UN.

The Americans would not supply troops or assets because that scumball Clinton was afraid of getting burned again after Somalia.

The Rwandans know who is responsible......when Annan visited the country, thousands turned out to line the streets......and pointedly turned their backs on his motorcade.....

We all are guilty of crimes of omission in Rwanda.......the UN is guilty of undercutting any attempt to stop it.

BTW.....Bush has been talking about Darfur for months or years.....he was one of the first to call it genocide.

The UN is, of course, completely useless on this issue.

What is needed is a "coalition of the willing" to get the hell in there and shoot Janjaweed. That simple.
 
zoofer
#12
Has the UN succeeded anywhere without American intervention?
Strange how a Rwandan general guilty of war crimes is still in Canada 10 years later.
 
I think not
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

What is needed is a "coalition of the willing" to get the hell in there and shoot Janjaweed. That simple.

You certainly at times live up to your avatar Colpy
 
Johnny Utah
#14
Why The UN failed in Sudan is because the UN didn't want to risk the lives of their peacekeepers in that part of the World. In Somalia 1993 24 Pakistani peacekeepers were killed, when that happen the UN lost the stomach to take that kind of risk in that area of the World with their peacekeepers again.
 

Similar Threads

16
No failure
by Walter | Feb 1st, 2008
91
(CC) NAFTA is a failure
by Andem | Jun 19th, 2006
3
Googling Failure
by Haggis McBagpipe | Sep 18th, 2005
11
System Failure
by jjw1965 | Sep 11th, 2005