NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's hoping I remember the ruling properly. I'm allowed to do a cut-n-paste as long as it isn't more than one a day, right? If I'm wrong I apologise and feel free to delete this.

Anyway, while I was catching up on my reading, I stumbled upon this, and I think it raises some salient concerns about the UN.


The genocide before our eyes

In the past year marauding hordes in Sudan known as janjaweed, acting on behalf of the central government, have killed as many as 30,000 people in the western province of Darfur. Machetes are the weapons of choice, but government war planes often pitch in to assist the slaughter.

The numbers in Sudan portend genocide. International agencies say the 1.2 million Darfurians have been displaced internally and another 120,000 have fled into neighboring Chad.

The U.S. Agency for International Development warns the situation has grown so chaotic another 350,000 people could be murdered by the janjaweed or die from starvation in concentratrion camps during the next few months.

And where is the United Nations, the international body that is supposed to keep the peace? Doing the one thing the UN does best: Jawing.

As the toll rises in Sudan, this is beginning to look terrifyingly familiar. It is beginning to look like the horror of a decade ago, when the UN caught between paralysis and indifference as Rwanada fell victim to genocide.

The number of dead in Sudan so far is not quite as high as it was in Rwanda 10 years ago. But given enough time, it could be.

It is reminiscent of April 1994, when hordes of Rwandan Hutus, also wielding machetes, killed about 800,000 Tutsis over a period of 100 days.

The U.S. has supplied most of the food aid to refugee camps in Chad and strongly protested the killings in Sudan. On May 4, the U.S. representative walked out of a meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights, to protest Sudan becoming a member.

That's right. Sudan is a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

The UN has opened refugee camps in Chad and sent food, but any other intervention, a spokeswoman said, must await the signing of a peace pact to end Sudan's other civil war against rebels in the south. Until then, the killing in Darfur is a "side issue."

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who headed the UN's small Department of Peacekeeping Operations during the Rwandan genocide, has tried to focus world attention on this unfolding catastrophe in Sudan.

But so far there is little collective outrage at the UN, or individual concern by Arab, European or African countries. Apart from the U.S. food shipments, only Chad has done much.

Khartoum's government has a sordid history of mass murder. For 20 years it slaughtered black Christians and animists in the south. A year ago, it turned its murderous rage on the black Muslims in Darfur, whom it suspects of collaborating with two rebel groups.

During Rwanda's genocide the Clinton administration, reeling from the debacel of intervention in Somalia, did little more than compose internal memos parsing the meaning of "genocide." The UN posted 2,500 peacekeepers, but they couldn't do much but witness the killing.

With the UN unable to roust itself from its usual torpor, it shouldn't surprise if the Sudanese government concludes it has received a tacit green light from the world to go on killing in large numbers. It shouldn't surprise the world either if the Sudanese killing fields turn into a tragedy of Rwandan proportuions.No emphasis added.

Here's hoping I remember the ruling properly. I'm allowed to do a cut-n-paste as long as it isn't more than one a day, right? If I'm wrong I apologise and feel free to delete this.

Anyway, while I was catching up on my reading, I stumbled upon this, and I think it raises some salient concerns about the UN.


The genocide before our eyes

In the past year marauding hordes in Sudan known as janjaweed, acting on behalf of the central government, have killed as many as 30,000 people in the western province of Darfur. Machetes are the weapons of choice, but government war planes often pitch in to assist the slaughter.

The numbers in Sudan portend genocide. International agencies say the 1.2 million Darfurians have been displaced internally and another 120,000 have fled into neighboring Chad.

The U.S. Agency for International Development warns the situation has grown so chaotic another 350,000 people could be murdered by the janjaweed or die from starvation in concentratrion camps during the next few months.

And where is the United Nations, the international body that is supposed to keep the peace? Doing the one thing the UN does best: Jawing.

As the toll rises in Sudan, this is beginning to look terrifyingly familiar. It is beginning to look like the horror of a decade ago, when the UN caught between paralysis and indifference as Rwanada fell victim to genocide.

The number of dead in Sudan so far is not quite as high as it was in Rwanda 10 years ago. But given enough time, it could be.

It is reminiscent of April 1994, when hordes of Rwandan Hutus, also wielding machetes, killed about 800,000 Tutsis over a period of 100 days.

The U.S. has supplied most of the food aid to refugee camps in Chad and strongly protested the killings in Sudan. On May 4, the U.S. representative walked out of a meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights, to protest Sudan becoming a member.

That's right. Sudan is a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

The UN has opened refugee camps in Chad and sent food, but any other intervention, a spokeswoman said, must await the signing of a peace pact to end Sudan's other civil war against rebels in the south. Until then, the killing in Darfur is a "side issue."

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who headed the UN's small Department of Peacekeeping Operations during the Rwandan genocide, has tried to focus world attention on this unfolding catastrophe in Sudan.

But so far there is little collective outrage at the UN, or individual concern by Arab, European or African countries. Apart from the U.S. food shipments, only Chad has done much.

Khartoum's government has a sordid history of mass murder. For 20 years it slaughtered black Christians and animists in the south. A year ago, it turned its murderous rage on the black Muslims in Darfur, whom it suspects of collaborating with two rebel groups.

During Rwanda's genocide the Clinton administration, reeling from the debacel of intervention in Somalia, did little more than compose internal memos parsing the meaning of "genocide." The UN posted 2,500 peacekeepers, but they couldn't do much but witness the killing.

With the UN unable to roust itself from its usual torpor, it shouldn't surprise if the Sudanese government concludes it has received a tacit green light from the world to go on killing in large numbers. It shouldn't surprise the world either if the Sudanese killing fields turn into a tragedy of Rwandan proportuions.No emphasis added.

No offense... but the UN itself has no mandate to raise issues for things like humanitarian intervention. All such resolutions must be put forward by a country in order to get the ball rolling.

As far as the UN itself, those involved such as Kofi Anan ARE pushing this issue - as clearly stated by the article.

What it needs is support from the member states that ahve to get involved, push the issue, and put forwards resources and resolutions in order to begin an intervention.

That is what is lacking, and that is many individual failures - not a failure of the group as a single entity,

So - I'll ask my government why it hasn't got involved in championing this cause, but you should look towards yours as well.

IT's not so much "why doesn't the UN care". It's "why doesn't anyone seem to care enough to press the issue"?

-Z-

Isn't Gadhafi running the UN's humanitarian effort?

No offense... but the UN itself has no mandate to raise issues for things like humanitarian intervention. All such resolutions must be put forward by a country in order to get the ball rolling.

Then doesn't that support the argument that the UN has become (or, is) little more than a League of Nations-style debating society? If the only way for it to do anything is by member initiative, then why is it around? Shouldn't it take a stand on such things?

As far as the UN itself, those involved such as Kofi Anan ARE pushing this issue - as clearly stated by the article.

Very true, alas he's mired in the current Oil For Food scandal.

What it needs is support from the member states that ahve to get involved, push the issue, and put forwards resources and resolutions in order to begin an intervention.

The thundering silence is rather disturbing, yes. But, so is Sudan's seat on the Human Rights Council. Surely the UN could take five minutes from condemning Isreal, and do something about Sudan's state-sponsered killing fields.

So - I'll ask my government why it hasn't got involved in championing this cause, but you should look towards yours as well.

Indeed. I'd like to see something more than just food shipments from my end.

IT's not so much "why doesn't the UN care". It's "why doesn't anyone seem to care enough to press the issue"?

Again, the deafening silence is quite disturbing. Hopefully something more useful than UN Smurf Helmet Forces will be sent.

However, what is truly disturbing is that nobody (aside from the US and Chad) seems to be doing anything, despite the wholesale slaughter of Muslims. Add that to outright refusal to step in until the civil war is over is shameful. The UN continuously sits on it's hands in the wake of genocide (even in Europe; NATO went to Serbia), and I'm starting to wonder why we bother.

Currently, it serves no purpose. The General assembly has no power, and there are deep rifts in the Security Council. We (the US) all but ignored UN opposition to Iraq, and the UN doesn't have the mandate to do anything in Sudan. So, seriously, why does anyone bother with it?

I have said this before, and I'll say it again, The UN is a fuck ing joke. Until it has the ability to enforce the resolutions it passes it will continue to look more and more like the League of Nations.

If it started looking like NATO, people would respect their authority.

The UN isn't some sort of gamer community that referees wars, it is a body for the nations to have a forum and procedure to settle disputes amongst nations and interact in an established method, rather than just randomly bumping into each other and playing a he-said she-said that would lead to larger (world war style) conflict. It is not supposed to be responsable for internal conflicts, and the condemnations and actions you are asking for far exceed it's INTENDED grasp.

The UN isn't some sort of gamer community that referees wars, it is a body for the nations to have a forum and procedure to settle disputes amongst nations and interact in an established method, rather than just randomly bumping into each other and playing a he-said she-said that would lead to larger (world war style) conflict.

...and? It seems perfectly willing to pass resolution after resolution condemning Israel, why can it not be arsed to do the same for the Sudan? The numbers from the Sudan are chilling, yet they get a seat on the Human Rights Council. It's not a forum, its a bludgeon for its biases.

It is not supposed to be responsable for internal conflicts, and the condemnations and actions you are asking for far exceed it's INTENDED grasp.

Then perhaps it's time for (GASP!) change. If this lauded international body can't be bothered to stop the killing of 30,000 black Muslims or the displacement of 1.2 million people. 120,000 have fled to Chad, thus making it decidely less than "internal".

Of course, it's not like they ever be condemned as long as the muderous thugs hold a seat on the very council that should be crying in outrage.

Isn't Gadhafi running the UN's humanitarian effort? Not anymore, I think now Australia is. Which in some ways is Equally as ridiculous.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again, The UN is a f--- ing joke. Until it has the ability to enforce the resolutions it passes it will continue to look more and more like the League of Nations.
What disturbs me is the fact that you are a soldier.

The stated purpose of the U.N is to mediate contact between nations and help to prevent another world war. It Ironic that the U.S seems so Hostile to it.

dp

Isn't Gadhafi running the UN's humanitarian effort? Not anymore, I think now Australia is. Which in some ways is Equally as ridiculous.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again, The UN is a f--- ing joke. Until it has the ability to enforce the resolutions it passes it will continue to look more and more like the League of Nations.
What disturbs me is the fact that you are a soldier.

The stated purpose of the U.N is to mediate contact between nations and help to prevent another world war. It Ironic that the U.S seems so Hostile to it.

The U.S. is hostile towards the UN because it spends so much time wringing
it's hands over what the U.S. and Israel are doing, and shows a complete disregard for places like Sudan and North Korea, where the real problems are happening.

BTW: I was a soldier, too -- and I think the UN is a F---ing joke. Maybe it was one of those classes we all had to take in Basic Training?!?!

I agree Redneck....judging from the inordinate amount of time the UN spends on either the US or Israel...it's no small wonder why little things like the slaughter in Sudan or the oppression in Burma/Mynamar are allowed to continue.....it seems to me that the UN has more then ample time and desire to want to chastise and seek to correct the US and Israel but refuses to remove the planks in their own eyes.

My quote, Which you selectively ignored lays it out for you. The U.N exists to mediate contact between nations. If the nations dont want contact then the U.N cant force them. They dont go marching off to wars willy nilly. They like to think of themselves being objective and not the be all and end all of things. I dont like what happens in Sudan or north korea either. but its not as If the U.N is some magical force. It Is made up of a group of nations, a lot of which have a conflict of interest.

and As I've said on this board Many times which you also seem to have ignored. The U.S could start bringing down NK Today, without the use of force, but they choose not to.

Whilst I happen to feel that the U.N has the potential to be a force for great good in the 21st century I think it is in dire need of some substantial reforms. In this case they have done little to impress me, just one snippet of information I came across a while back:

In a recent debate held by the U.N concerning Sudan all participants were expressly forbidden from using the world "genocide".

Which for me is simply appalling.

Yes I certainly think it needs to be reformed but I dont think It or anything like it shouldnt exist Like RG or Salishe seems to be saying.

Why do people put faith in anything? Time and history have both shown us that no matter where on the globe, institutions always go wrong. Sometimes they do it spectaculary (Nazi Germany, for example), sometimes they do it for greed (the rash of CEO misconduct trials in the USA, for example), sometimes they've done it in the past (UK colonialization, for example) and sometimes they refuse to admit it's wrong (I think we all know the current example for this one). The question is, does this make them, at base, inherantly bad institutions? My argument is no, it doesn't. Simply because an institution or an entity makes mistakes does not invalidate the good they do or remove any chance of them rectifying their error. In order to progress, we must be prepared to accept a certain level of error simply because, as humans, we aren't always right.

The UN represents a true striving for something, a concrete and rational embodiment of a global understanding. We live in a world with a myriad of viewpoints. Frequently these viewpoints come into conflict. With the current technology at our disposal and the sheer number of conflicting viewpoints throughout the globe, resolving our differences through force alone is no longer acceptable or, indeed, even possible. Additionally, as we make much hay about our superiority over other forms of life on this planet, it seems that we should be able to rise above our baser instincts for violent conflict and settle our differences through discussion and agreement rather than brute force. This attempt to live up to our own PR as well as pragmatically understanding the nature of modern conflict and the potential destructive capability we possess is represented by the UN.

It is a sincere attempt to find a new way of statesmanship in an increasingly populated and dangerous world. It represents the best (and, as everything has two sides, the worst) politics can offer humanity. It is our brightest and most shining endorsement of our aversion to war and suffering and a sterling acknowledgement of the basic understanding that all human beings, by the very nature of their birth into the species, should be granted a fundamental base line of respect and liberty.

At least, this is what it should be.

As the UN is an ideal put into real world example, it is not perfect. As it is administered by humans, it is prone to the same sorts of errors and blindness that prey on all human institutions. Does it make mistakes? Yes. Is it swayed from it's overriding course by the short-term agendas of it's individual members? Yes (although, I suspect, not as much as it's detractors would like to claim). Has it's nobel intent succumbed in the past and, most likely, will again in the future to the very types of strife it attempts to limit? Yes. Do these failures invalidate it? This answer must be a very unequivacable no.

Recently, these boards have been alive with the nature of the US treatment of the Geneva Conventions. Not to hijack this thread, but I think at least one of the arguments put forth in these other threads is very relevant here. Simply because a law or an institution, such as the GC or the UN, is broken does not invalidate it the next time it is tested. In spite of it's mistakes and ineffectualities, it still represents the best hope we as a species have for continued existance on this planet because, at a fundamental level, it represents the best of us. We must not abandon the sincere desire for peace that led us to create it in the first place. The UN itself, the building, the people, the letterhead, are not that important. It's what they stand for that must be respected and nurtured and given a chance to survive. Otherwise, we have abandoned the nobel goal of leaving a safer world for our children and given in to our basest, darkest desires as a species.

Yet again I have to abandon all plans for a response in a debate because Berkylvania gets there first and says it so much better than I could hope to do.

What he said!

Yet again I have to abandon all plans for a response in a debate because Berkylvania gets there first and says it so much better than I could hope to do.

What he said!

LOL, thanks Ecopoeia and I will send you a telegram just as soon as I have a minute to sit down and give your telegram the thoughtful response it deserves. :D

Whay he said.

Yet again I have to abandon all plans for a response in a debate because Berkylvania gets there first and says it so much better than I could hope to do.

What he said!

LOL, thanks Ecopoeia and I will send you a telegram just as soon as I have a minute to sit down and give your telegram the thoughtful response it deserves. :D

No worries, I appreciate that some people have a life outside this game... don't they?

(a whole bunch of good sense)

Spot on, man (or woman). :)

People should remember that the UN is merely the sum of its parts, that it's not some outside entity with its own set of opinions, policies and interests. If the UN fails, it's the responsibility of its member nations. Since most of the most powerful member nations are democracies, the failure of those nations is the failure of those nations' citizens. Us, in other words. To a large degree, if the UN doesn't do what we think it should, if it doesn't live up to its potential -- it's OUR FAULT. We are our politicians' bosses. If they are screwing up, it's up to us to correct them.

Yet again I have to abandon all plans for a response in a debate because Berkylvania gets there first and says it so much better than I could hope to do.

What he said!

LOL, thanks Ecopoeia and I will send you a telegram just as soon as I have a minute to sit down and give your telegram the thoughtful response it deserves. :D

No worries, I appreciate that some people have a life outside this game... don't they?I do, but it doesn't go far past MSN Messenger.

Good Speech

Well said Berk! 8) (But I think you killed the thread :P )

Doesn't this prove, though, that Idealistic things (like the UN) don't work well in the real world? I consider liberalism to be too idealistic, and it will never work because of the diversity of humanity. What works well for one group of people, is horrible for others (like welfare, socialized medicine, ...)

Good Speech

Well said Berk! 8) (But I think you killed the thread :P )

Doesn't this prove, though, that Idealistic things (like the UN) don't work well in the real world? I consider liberalism to be too idealistic, and it will never work because of the diversity of humanity. What works well for one group of people, is horrible for others (like welfare, socialized medicine, ...)

Thanks, RG, and I sincerely hope I didn't kill the thread. I think a lot of people will completely disagree with me. They usually do. :D

I think you may have a point, but are perhaps being too limited. Instead of saying just "Idealistic" things don't work well in the real world, I think you could honestly expand it to say "things in general" don't work well in the real world. Most real world projects are based on ideals somewhere. It's the implementation and usage that bogs the process down. I know it's a very Platonian outlook, but I think it applies. We know we're going to mess up when we try to take something from the drawing board of pure thought and speculation to the testing room floor of the real world. The trick is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but to learn from those mistakes, work them into our design and hope to not fall prey to them in the future. Just because entropy exists doesn't give us an excuse to not rail against it or struggle to overcome it.

My quote, Which you selectively ignored lays it out for you. The U.N exists to mediate contact between nations. If the nations dont want contact then the U.N cant force them. They dont go marching off to wars willy nilly. They like to think of themselves being objective and not the be all and end all of things. I dont like what happens in Sudan or north korea either. but its not as If the U.N is some magical force. It Is made up of a group of nations, a lot of which have a conflict of interest.

and As I've said on this board Many times which you also seem to have ignored. The U.S could start bringing down NK Today, without the use of force, but they choose not to.

If what you say is true then what is UNICEF?

Here is what the UN (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.html) says about itself;

"The central role of the United Nations in the promotion of peace and security, development and human rights around the world was recognized on 10 December 2001, when the UN and its Secretary-General were awarded the centennial Nobel Peace Prize. Today, every nation in the world participates in the activities of this international body dedicated to the service of humanity. Yet despite its heightened profile in global affairs, many questions and some misperceptions remain regarding its work. These pages provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the UN today...."

More specific information on their mandate can be found here. (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch4/ch4.htm) Apparently your statements are at odds with what the UN says.

SHL

I have faith with open guys when it comes to the UN.

That is the most piss poor example of quote mining I have ever seen. Despite What you posted and what I have posted are not mutually exclusive and are actually more or less the same statements with different wording, 30 seconds worth of reading more reveals that

THE UNITED NATIONS is a unique international organization of 191 sovereign States, representing virtually every country in the world.* It was founded after the Second World War to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations and promote social progress, better living standards and human rights.

You are trolling right? Theres no way you could have been that wrong without have been trying to provoke a response.

My quote, Which you selectively ignored lays it out for you. The U.N exists to mediate contact between nations. If the nations dont want contact then the U.N cant force them. They dont go marching off to wars willy nilly. They like to think of themselves being objective and not the be all and end all of things. I dont like what happens in Sudan or north korea either. but its not as If the U.N is some magical force. It Is made up of a group of nations, a lot of which have a conflict of interest.

and As I've said on this board Many times which you also seem to have ignored. The U.S could start bringing down NK Today, without the use of force, but they choose not to.

If what you say is true then what is UNICEF?

Here is what the UN (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.html) says about itself;

"The central role of the United Nations in the promotion of peace and security, development and human rights around the world was recognized on 10 December 2001, when the UN and its Secretary-General were awarded the centennial Nobel Peace Prize. Today, every nation in the world participates in the activities of this international body dedicated to the service of humanity. Yet despite its heightened profile in global affairs, many questions and some misperceptions remain regarding its work. These pages provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the UN today...."

More specific information on their mandate can be found here. (http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch4/ch4.htm) Apparently your statements are at odds with what the UN says.

SHL

I ... see.....

Thanks, RG, and I sincerely hope I didn't kill the thread. I think a lot of people will completely disagree with me. They usually do. :D

I think you may have a point, but are perhaps being too limited. Instead of saying just "Idealistic" things don't work well in the real world, I think you could honestly expand it to say "things in general" don't work well in the real world. Most real world projects are based on ideals somewhere. It's the implementation and usage that bogs the process down. I know it's a very Platonian outlook, but I think it applies. We know we're going to mess up when we try to take something from the drawing board of pure thought and speculation to the testing room floor of the real world. The trick is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but to learn from those mistakes, work them into our design and hope to not fall prey to them in the future. Just because entropy exists doesn't give us an excuse to not rail against it or struggle to overcome it.

You make a compelling argument!
Some other points to consider in trying to implement any change effort ...

The complexities of a given situation are almost always missed or oversimplified.

Often these efforts are directed at a symptom, and not the root problem.

When a change initiative is implemented, the focus is upon the result which would seem logical.
The confounding part is there are other aspects of the beginning equation which are impacted by this change to the point that the end result doesn't equal what it would have with the initial variables.
In other words ... A + B = C; You don't like C, so you decide upon striving for D.
Only problem is the mindset was just upon D, not about changing A and/or B to equal D ...
Unintended consequences!

Human nature is often to view situations in a vacuum, rather than in a more universal context.

Ok, I'm giving myself a headache now! :D