NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe, because as the US has said, it is impotent? What will it take to get the UN to do something other than pass unenforced resolutions?

Because the UN is not an army or a force, because it's not the mandate for the UN to do any thing, it's up to the member states to do some thing. So then your question should be directed at the members of the security council, not the UN.

Alright...then why isn't the UN Security Council heeding the United States and taking steps to stop this? To say the UN is not a force is fallacy. It can exert very strong pressure and has in the past.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/106477/1/.html

You know, Steph, you wouldn't be saying that if it were a parent corporation under discussion.

Well it probably doesn't have any oil reserves.

They probably didn't make any threats to kill the Presidents "daddy"

Other then that, you have to ask the security council.

Powell used the dreaded G word and yet there is no action. Our rep was probably instructed not to use it just like with Rawanda.

It's sad. We like to think we have advanced and yet.....

At least Colin Powell and the U.S are calling it like it is: genocide. In my mind the only way the Arab militias will be stopped is by an intervention of force, preferably at least in part from other African or even Arab nations. If we fail again - just like we did in Rwanda my faith in the competence and goodness of western governments will slip just a little bit more.

Then again, when a member state gets tired of waiting and does get up and do something, they're criticized for not waiting for the other ducks to get in line.
The UN is useless, always has been, always will be. It's nothing but a theoretical socialist think-tank for utopian ideals that can't exist in the same world as human nature.
I'm sure they all feel better about themselves for publicly abhoring the massacres in such strong terms. And next month, they get to do it again! Even stronger terms will make them feel even more superior to us unwashed masses whose money they need to accomplish absolutely nothing.
My God! What would we do without them?

Then again, why risk any exposure to consequences when you can just sit on your hands until the US takes action? I mean, why spoil a perfectly good opportunity to bitch, snipe and backstab from a safe little corner 1000 miles from the problem?

The United States:
1. Cowboys? You betcha!
2. More balls than brains? Perhaps.
3. Always right? Nope.
4. Concerned about european (in)continental delacacies? Not a chance.
5. Gonna sit around and watch Genocide happen while pontificating about it? Doubt it.
6. Will get run thru the international political wringer if they actually do something? Of course.

Why would this time be any different?

Well it probably doesn't have any oil reserves.

They probably didn't make any threats to kill the Presidents "daddy"

Other then that, you have to ask the security council.

Powell used the dreaded G word and yet there is no action. Our rep was probably instructed not to use it just like with Rawanda.

It's sad. We like to think we have advanced and yet.....

its got 630,000,000 bbl. Thats a decent amount of oil. And thats only proven reserves, I am sure there is more there when people actually get around to looking

The daddy stuff is just silly.

The world has to stand up to Darfur; they've pansied around us too long, we have to take action

If the US were to lead a colition of nations to get this situation under control, who would support the effort with troops and money? On the other hand, who can we count on criticizing the mission?

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/

If the US were to lead a colition of nations to get this situation under control, who would support the effort with troops and money? On the other hand, who can we count on criticizing the mission?

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/

Well I do know that in the Sudanese capital over 10,000 Muslims marched in opposition to the idea of Western intervention.

Well I do know that in the Sudanese capital over 10,000 Muslims marched in opposition to the idea of Western intervention.

It's the Muslims killing these people!! WHO is estimating the death rate to be upwards of 10,000 a month! Everytime anyone does something that is opposed to the ideals of fanatical Muslims, there is a protest...only it usually involves a body count.

Well it probably doesn't have any oil reserves.


As already said, Sudan has oil at is known to support terrorist organisations. But this thing has been going on for years and noone has been really interested about it. Now it's just starting to get a bit too harsh to turn ones back to the issue anymore but still noone wants to get involved. There's nothing to gain.

If Bush is such a caring man, why didn't he intervene months ago and 'liberate' Sudan aswell?

If Bush is such a caring man, why didn't he intervene months ago and 'liberate' Sudan aswell?
Well Clinton tried to liberate a Sudanese medical factory...

It's the Muslims killing these people!! WHO is estimating the death rate to be upwards of 10,000 a month! Everytime anyone does something that is opposed to the ideals of fanatical Muslims, there is a protest...only it usually involves a body count.

WHO!!?? Why would you trust something that a specialized agency of the Great Satan (the UN) is saying? That figure is probably just something the socialist thinktank wants you to believe, right? I bet it's an European conspiracy to stretch American troops even thinner. ;)

Maybe, because as the US has said, it is impotent? What will it take to get the UN to do something other than pass unenforced resolutions?
Probably because the members - the five permanent members the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - are impotent? Or rather because they can never agree what to do. That is the problem with the UN since it was founded. A problem not caused by the UN but by its permanent members.

WHO!!?? Why would you trust something that a specialized agency of the Great Satan (the UN) is saying? That figure is probably just something the socialist thinktank wants you to believe, right? I bet it's an European conspiracy to stretch American troops even thinner. ;)
Why are the socialists in Europe than opposing taking actions? Or do they just want the US to act again in a small coalition of the willing?

Maybe, because as the US has said, it is impotent? What will it take to get the UN to do something other than pass unenforced resolutions?
better question yet, why isnt the all powerful US doing it? because no one gives a fuck about sudan, its a little war torn country without alot of oil or anything else, fuck it

Why are the socialists in Europe than opposing taking actions? Or do they just want the US to act again in a small coalition of the willing?

My previous post was some sort of sarcasm.

Answering your question - as far as i know, the EU has asked the UN to establish a team to investigate if there really is an ongoing genocide in Darfour. This is because according to the treaty of 1948 the UN members have to take actions if genocide indeed is happening. I wasn't aware the socialist parties were somehow opposing this. I know the Social Democratic party in my country is very much in favour of sanctions.

The EU as a whole has called for sanctions aginst Sudan too. In a meeting held on Monday in Brussels, the EU foreign ministers called on the Sudanese government to arrest leaders of Jangaweid militias and facilitate the access of humanitarian aid to vulnerable people in the district. The EU didn't sign the 400 mil. aid package to Sudan because of the events in Darfour. EU would like to issue further trade sanctions against Sudan. Unfortunately Pakistan and China oppose this in the UN security council.

I think there is will here, but because the Security Council is what it is, there's little to be done. For some reason the EU wants it to be done the UN way.
sad really.

If Bush is such a caring man, why didn't he intervene months ago and 'liberate' Sudan aswell?
He probably couldn't find it on the map.

My previous post was some sort of sarcasm.
Answering your question - as far as i know, the EU has asked the UN to establish a team to investigate if there really is an ongoing genocide in Darfour. This is because according to the treaty of 1948 the UN members have to take actions if genocide indeed is happening. I wasn't aware the socialist parties were somehow opposing this. I know the Social Democratic party in my country is very much in favour of sanctions.
The EU as a whole has called for sanctions aginst Sudan too. In a meeting held on Monday in Brussels, the EU foreign ministers called on the Sudanese government to arrest leaders of Jangaweid militias and facilitate the access of humanitarian aid to vulnerable people in the district. The EU didn't sign the 400 mil. aid package to Sudan because of the events in Darfour. EU would like to issue further trade sanctions against Sudan. Unfortunately Pakistan and China oppose this in the UN security council.
I think there is will here, but because the Security Council is what it is, there's little to be done. For some reason the EU wants it to be done the UN way.
sad really.
Come on: Nobody cares about Sudan. Finnland is a neutral country and doesn´t do anything to anybody - which is not the worst thing to do anyway. That was very smart during the Cold War.
The EU is not interested to do anything and is hiding behind the Security Council - Russia and China. Russias and Chinas human rights record is not that good, especially that one of China and Russias in Chechenya. So it would be unlogical and against there interests to support any action against Sudan.
Sanctions don´t work. They can contain a country but they can´t stop a dictatorship committing atrocities at its own citizens. And since we all want Sudan to export their oil we are certainly excluding it from the sanctions lists anyway.

Come on: Nobody cares about Sudan. Finnland is a neutral country and doesn´t do anything to anybody - which is not the worst thing to do anyway. That was very smart during the Cold War.
The EU is not interested to do anything and is hiding behind the Security Council - Russia and China. Russias and Chinas human rights record is not that good, especially that one of China and Russias in Chechenya. So it would be unlogical and against there interests to support any action against Sudan.
Sanctions don´t work. They can contain a country but they can´t stop a dictatorship committing atrocities at its own citizens. And since we all want Sudan to export their oil we are certainly excluding it from the sanctions lists anyway.

Well, I don't quite know what you are after then. I mentioned what EU has done or asked to be done.

Nobody cares about Sudan? Well, you obviously care. I care. It's feasible to think others do too. I think it would be much easier to rally a 'coalition of the willing' in this case if need be.

What comes to "doing anything to anybody", quite right. Finland is however quite big in peacekeeping missions. I don't think anybody waits for us to go pacify Sudan though. :)
As soon as there's a UN mandate, I think we would be ready. Oops... under the current law we don't even need UN mandate...

The US should do something, but our entire army is busy getting its ass kicked. We're stretched to fucking thin. This is why Iraq was dumb: we are now powerless to stop massacres like this.

Well, I don't quite know what you are after then. I mentioned what EU has done or asked to be done.
Nobody cares about Sudan? Well, you obviously care. I care. It's feasible to think others do too. I think it would be much easier to rally a 'coalition of the willing' in this case if need be.
What comes to "doing anything to anybody", quite right. Finland is however quite big in peacekeeping missions. I don't think anybody waits for us to go pacify Sudan though. :)
As soon as there's a UN mandate, I think we would be ready. Oops... under the current law we don't even need UN mandate...
Really: how far is Finnland engaged in peace keeping missions?
I for my part don´t think that we can intervene everywhere in the world. We have limmitted resources and can´t do everything. There are cases where interventions don´t work. I just want to remind to Somalia in 1993. I personally don´t see a difference to the situation in Sudan though. It is not only important to have good intentions but one needs the resources and a plan for it. I don´t see it in the case of Sudan. And I think we have to concentrate on the issues more important to us and our national interests - like the Balkans and Afghanistan. Well, and - we can´t escape it - Iraq. Iraq is much more closer to Europe than Afghanistan and we have to care how the Middle East - our neighbouring region - is developing.
It could turn into the biggest thread for European security. The thread from the South is more and more replacing the thread from the East.
I just want to stress the islamic terrorism: Spain was just the begining. Italy is likely to be the next target and then Britain. And if they are attacked all members of the coalition of the willing regarding Iraq they are going to attack all regarding Afghanistan. We can not back down to terrorists. That is a big mistake to believe that we can buy ourselves free. And therefore I think that the goverment of my country was wrong - as well as France - to oppose the Iraq war. Hopefully they realize that mistake and apopt a different position towards Iran (which is - admittedly in contrast to Iraq - a real thread, though).

Man, I'm glad they pointed out to me that its genocide. There's a large ethnic based slaughter and I was getting confused as to what was happening..

Really: how far is Finnland engaged in peace keeping missions?.
Far? Well, some 44 000 Finns have been engaged in those missions. Most of them many times over. There is few UN peace keeping missions Finland hasn't been part of. Currently there are troops in Afghanistan (CIMIC duties) , Kosovo, Eritrea, Macedonia and Bosnia. There are military observers in Kashmir, Cyprus and Liberia. I couldn't be arsed to count the total personnel out there now... but it seems in Kosovo alone there are 680.
I for my part don´t think that we can intervene everywhere in the world. We have limmitted resources and can´t do everything...
I'm under the impression you're German, right? I would agree with your assessment. :)
I personally don´t see a difference to the situation in Sudan though. It is not only important to have good intentions but one needs the resources and a plan for it...
I wholeheartedly agree.
We can not back down to terrorists. That is a big mistake to believe that we can buy ourselves free.
Indeed. I just don't think we can blow them away either. New approaches desperately needed.

Man, I'm glad they pointed out to me that its genocide. There's a large ethnic based slaughter and I was getting confused as to what was happening..

lol
That sounds stupid indeed. Under the international law UN must first tell the members the obvious: it is a genocide. After that the member states pretty much have to intervene.
Again...sad.

(that might be a little simplistic interpretation of int. law)

I just don't think we can blow them away either. New approaches desperately needed.

We're faced with a faction of fanatic Muslims who are intent on destroying anyone not of their ilk, including other Muslims. They have no morals in their destructive quest. Negotiations are not an option in their view. When we attack and squash an arm of their loosely associated web, 3 more are inspired to take the place of one fallen. To capitulate to their demands are not an option. The common people, who are much like us in their priorities...home, family, job, etc...are suppressed by dictorial governments who sanction these fanatics. How do we approach this situation and hope for any measure of success?

Why SHOULD the US intervene? Seriously. Give me one GOOD reason why the US should get involved in what is essentially a civil war.

We jumped into Bosnia and Kosovo when the European countries would do nothing and we are still there.

The UN? Please. Dutch "peacekeepers" actually helped the Serbs load Bosnian men from Srebrenica onto trucks so they could be taken off and executed.

Would the UN do the same in Sudan?

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/nelson/rohde/peacekeepers_dutch.html

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/04/10/bosnia020410

Far? Well, some 44 000 Finns have been engaged in those missions. Most of them many times over. There is few UN peace keeping missions Finland hasn't been part of. Currently there are troops in Afghanistan (CIMIC duties) , Kosovo, Eritrea, Macedonia and Bosnia. There are military observers in Kashmir, Cyprus and Liberia. I couldn't be arsed to count the total personnel out there now... but it seems in Kosovo alone there are 680..
Repect: but I assume the 44.000 are the total number and not the one currently abroad. It is said that a country needs at least three times more troups at home just to support mission abroad. Aside of training and domestic security units. That leaves a limitted capacity for foreign deployments.

I'm under the impression you're German, right? I would agree with your assessment. :)..
I´m "guilty" of that charge, hehe.



Indeed. I just don't think we can blow them away either. New approaches desperately needed.
That is true. But we shouldn´t forget that it was and is the status quo which is breeding terrorism. It needs to be changed. And it is not possible to exclude the use of force in order to do so. It is a dilemma admittedly.
In that sense I can even understand Chirac and Schröder.
Though for geostrategic reasons I think that - unfortunately - the intervention in Iraq was necessary, especially taking into account the development in Iran.

Why SHOULD the US intervene? Seriously. Give me one GOOD reason why the US should get involved in what is essentially a civil war.
I don´t see a reason either. It is better to use diplomatic pressure. But an intervention - however good the intention were - would likely not go well. Just think about Somalia.
I don´t see a concept for Sudan, either.

Repect: but I assume the 44.000 are the total number and not the one currently abroad.

Sure. 44.000 is the total. Currently there are some 2000 ppl abroad. Our total population is only 5 million. I'm sorry if i shocked you with that 44.000. :)

How do we approach this situation and hope for any measure of success?
If I only knew, I would be invited to Oslo to get my Nobel peace prize. I was merely pointing out that the current approach hasn't proven to be foolproof either.

If I only knew, I would be invited to Oslo to get my Nobel peace prize. I was merely pointing out that the current approach hasn't proven to be foolproof either.

I didn't mean to challenge you. I'm trying to stay out of the opinion aspect of this discussion and pose questions encouraging brainstorming.

We have the same goal then. :D

Sure. 44.000 is the total. Currently there are some 2000 ppl abroad. Our total population is only 5 million. I'm sorry if i shocked you with that 44.000. :)
Is that the size of your military? 44.000?
Quite big for a country of that size and population actually.
And 2000 is compared to that numer highly respectable.
Germany has currently around 7180 ppl abroad, mainly in Kosovo (3320), Bosnia (1150) and Afghanistan (2115).
Aside of Enduring Freedom (Dschibouti - coast of East Africa: 290), Active Endevour at the Mediterean and observers in Georgia and Georgia and Ethopia/Eritrea.
I wonder where they all are. It is really a huge change. The first foreign mission of the Bundeswehr (founded in 1956) was actually in 1993 in Somalia. Since than it has increased and increased. No mission finished really. I wonder to what that is leading up to.
But we can´t give up. We have to work on it and try to be better. It also needs time for shure.

Is that the size of your military? 44.000?
Quite big for a country of that size and population actually.


No, the 44.000 thousand is the number of finns serving in UN missions since 1956.

Get ready for this... the size of our military according to CIA factbook in 2004 is 1,013,961. :D This is of course due to the conscript army. 32.000 men are trained annually. How effective conscript army is? Another matter completely. 82% of men go through the military training though. And the reservist age ends when you turn 49.

We aren't still going to go and pacify Sudan, thank you. ;)

No, the 44.000 thousand is the number of finns serving in UN missions since 1956.
Get ready for this... the size of our military according to CIA factbook in 2004 is 1,013,961. :D This is of course due to the conscript army. 32.000 men are trained annually. How effective conscript army is? Another matter completely. 82% of men go through the military training though.
We aren't still going to go and pacify Sudan, thank you. ;)
Amusing, hehehe. But it isn´t that big de facto. It is 32.000 + the professional or time soldiers.
Otherwise you would also come to astronomical numbers in Germany actually.
Germany also has a system of conscription. It bounds many resources of course. And there are discussions about it. - But well: if it wouldn´t be there there wouldn´t be the civil replacement service either and social instituitions need it. It is just too convenient to remain things as they are.

Just for the record, I'm an expat living in Egypt, right up close to Sudan- anyone who doesn't believe me can TG me! And, if I'm not utterly mistaken, I read in the Egyptian Gazette that the Sudanese government turned down the placement of a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Oh, and if anyone cares to know, the Sudanese government is being accused
of supporting the Janjaweed- that is, the militia in Darfur.

We aren't still going to go and pacify Sudan, thank you. ;)
I can´t sent you there anyway. Don´t worry. In my view it is the right of every sovereign nation state to decide to which missions it wants to sent its troups. Because of that I´m against an European army for example.
The EU should remain those decision on unanimity if they are at all handeled through it. I prefer UN or - even better because more efficent - NATO.

Oh, and if anyone cares to know, the Sudanese government is being accused
of supporting the Janjaweed- that is, the militia in Darfur.
Thanks, but I already know that. And now? War or sanctions?
But who is really ready to go into Sudan?

In my view it is the right of every sovereign nation state to decide to which missions it wants to sent its troups. Because of that I´m against an European army for example.


I would wait for the plans before i can get against European army. I'm fully for the European rapid deployment force though. I think Europe should at least have the troops of that 60.000 to be used in cases like Darfour, if need be. If i understand the concept correctly, it would have to be available for deployment to a crisis area up to 2500 miles away within 60 days. If I'm not mistaken, the 15 member states indicated in Helsinki summit that they would be ready to pledge as many as 120.000 men to this. Of course NATO help is still needed, cos the EU lacks the transportation capability. I was also under the impression the member states can veto their troops from some missions if their constitution doesn't allow such a mission (do i foresee problems if there indeed is such a clause...).

In my opinion something like that has to be done. Otherwise EU looks completely dickless. Well, in all fairness we still would...

I would wait for the plans before i can get against European army. I'm fully for the European rapid deployment force though. I think Europe should at least have the troops of that 60.000 to be used in cases like Darfour, if need be. If i understand the concept correctly, it would have to be available for deployment to a crisis area up to 2500 miles away within 60 days. If I'm not mistaken, the 15 member states indicated in Helsinki summit that they would be ready to pledge as many as 120.000 men to this. Of course NATO help is still needed, cos the EU lacks the transportation capability. I was also under the impression the member states can veto their troops from some missions if their constitution doesn't allow such a mission (do i foresee problems if there indeed is such a clause...).

In my opinion something like that has to be done. Otherwise EU looks completely dickless. Well, in all fairness we still would...
I think that should be done via NATO. Than we have the Americans on bord as well. And military we CAN`T do without them. So, I rather favour NATOs Rapid Response Force under the umbrella of NATO.
Most EU members are members of NATO - all, except Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finnland. Why don´t you join it?

Why don´t you join it?

Our troops are completely NATO compatible. We are a part of the Partnership for Peace programme. I don't see an imminent threat to Finland even if we stayed outside NATO. Neutrality has been a good solution for us this far... why piss the Russkies off by joining NATO. :)

Get ready for this... the size of our military according to CIA factbook in 2004 is 1,013,961. :D
No. Thats the number of men fit for military service. Not the actual size of the Finnish army.

Our troops are completely NATO compatible. We are a part of the Partnership for Peace programme. I don't see an imminent threat to Finland even if we stayed outside NATO. Neutrality has been a good solution for us this far... why piss the Russkies off by joining NATO. :)
And if Russia turns into an authoritarian dictatorship with expansionist tendencies again?
Unlikely probably. But Putins new "centralisation" plans cut Russian federalism which was established during the Yeltsin era. That is the end of the "so-called" vertical division of power (central government, local government). All power is now de facto again concentrated to the Kremlin who "suggests" the local governors to be elected by parliament. That is going to lead to an appointment system and to almost absolute for the president.
And there are circles in Russia which are speaking about former Soviet Republics as "near foreign countries". And now there is a "war against terrorism". Georgia for example could be a target - which would lead to tensions with the west. Do you want to stay neutral again?
But if you do, why do you want a common defense policy. That doesn´t fit to it, since the whole EU can´t stay neutral in such a situation.

yeah DF just commeted.
Someone wants us to do something: Mister U.S.A plz help. literaly well except the mister part.
When They Don't: You fat stuipd incomptent international police you only eat donuts.

yeah DF just commeted.
Someone wants us to do something: Mister U.S.A plz help. literaly well except the mister part.
When They Don't: You fat stuipd incomptent international police you only eat donuts.
That is exactly the dilemma of the US. I wouldn´t want to be in the position of the only remaining super power, because this position is very difficult indeed, since you have interests and responsibilities all around the world.

Yes, I know Von Witzleben. I was just trying to be cute... another miserable failure.

What comes to Russian scenarios - we'll wing it when it becomes acute. I think common European defence policy is somehow seen as something which could end the neutrality era here. Don't quote me on this though.

Now, I know discussin finland is rivetingly fun... but I think I heard the Darfourians demand our attention. ;)

What comes to Russian scenarios - we'll wing it when it becomes acute. I think common European defence policy is somehow seen as something which could end the neutrality era here. Don't quote me on this though.
Now, I know discussin finland is rivetingly fun... but I think I heard the Darfourians demand our attention. ;)
They won´t get it anyway. So why not discussing Finnland?

Well, the UN can not do anything just by itself, it doesn't have it's own army and has to relly on member's armies to create a force, and it still can't go into a country without this country asking for intervention or to stop a threat to neighboring countries.

It is so by design, the states didn't want to give the UN any real power that they couldn't control or that they would have to submit to. The UN was created to serve not as a world government, but as a place where countries would fix their problems peacefully.

The Darfur problem is one that has been going on for a very long time and that organizations all around the globe have been calling attention to for years now. It has at last got the attention of some countries, like the US, that have decided it's time to do something. What this something will be is anyone's guess. The problem has to be exposed in the Security Council and then they have to agree on what to do, and then the member states have to do it.

The US has taken a very important first step in calling attention to the problem, calling it a genocide and demanding action from the Security Council. This is a very welcome change of attitude from what happened leading up to Rwanda.

I think that an African Union intervention would be the best qualified to go into Sudan, with economic and tactical support of Western nations. But first there has to be a very good sense on what has to be accomplished and ensuring the participation of Arab nations (Sudan being part Arab).

Oh, yeah, and while they're at it they may want to do something about stopping female circumsition (sp?) in the whole region.

I think that an African Union intervention would be the best qualified to go into Sudan, with economic and tactical support of Western nations. But first there has to be a very good sense on what has to be accomplished and ensuring the participation of Arab nations (Sudan being part Arab).
Oh, yeah, and while they're at it they may want to do something about stopping female circumsition (sp?) in the whole region.
Which African countries do you mean? The other dictatorships? Who also practise FGM.
Well, I would agree with you that the best thing is the Africans take care about it themself.
The West is often simply not able to deal with such things and to develop concepts for those areas which fit for it. I just think about Somalia (1993) where that has failed as well.

Alright...then why isn't the UN Security Council heeding the United States and taking steps to stop this? To say the UN is not a force is fallacy. It can exert very strong pressure and has in the past.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/106477/1/.html

Has the United States tried to pass a resolution and committed troops as well to go into the Sudan to help stop the situation? I don't believe so. Don't throw stones when you live in glass houses.

Which African countries do you mean? The other dictatorships? Who also practise FGM.
Well, I would agree with you that the best thing is the Africans take care about it themself.
The West is often simply not able to deal with such things and to develop concepts for those areas which fit for it. I just think about Somalia (1993) where that has failed as well.

The West is not able and neither is it desirable that they should do so.

I was thinking the African Union for the short term handling of the Darfur problem, genocide and all. Africans have to start taking more responsibilities and a more active role in solving their issues.

FGM will require a lot more of Western pressure, Islamic leaders denouncing it as barbaric and not part of Islam, investment in education and health, and good old time and patience. A lot of people there really think it is necessary to ensure female health and happiness. I know it's a very long shot, but here is hoping.

The West is not able and neither is it desirable that they should do so.
I was thinking the African Union for the short term handling of the Darfur problem, genocide and all. Africans have to start taking more responsibilities and a more active role in solving their issues.
FGM will require a lot more of Western pressure, Islamic leaders denouncing it as barbaric and not part of Islam, investment in education and health, and good old time and patience. A lot of people there really think it is necessary to ensure female health and happiness. I know it's a very long shot, but here is hoping.
I think we have to think in much longer time-frames here. Just look to medivel Europe. Wasn´t such a great place either. Or the thirty-year-war (1618-48) decreasing the population in Central Europe - in some regions up to 60%.
Not to speak about the wars afterwards. From the Napoleonic war - in which France tried to conquor all of Europe to World War I - even a much bigger dimension - or World War II - accompanied by the Holocaust.
Probably history need to go through tragedy, probably things need to get worse before they can become better and people realize that they need to change.
We may be able to contain desasters but I don´t think that we - the West - are able to prevent all disasters in the world. That would be an overestimation of its power.

Has the United States tried to pass a resolution and committed troops as well to go into the Sudan to help stop the situation? I don't believe so. Don't throw stones when you live in glass houses.
no but do the europeans listen to us when we do?

this thread seams to be pointing something realy obivous The UN IS A POWERLESS BIT OF Shit.

I think we have to think in much longer time-frames here. Just look to medivel Europe. Wasn´t such a great place either. Or the thirty-year-war (1618-48) decreasing the population in Central Europe - in some regions up to 60%.


Oh, yes, I totally agree. Trying to impose a quick solution won't solve any of the underlying problems and will probably make matter worse after a few years. It has to be a combination of methods to stop the current genocide in the short term and work towards solving the inequity that caused it in the first place in the long term.

And yes, perhaps things have to get a lot worse before people will do it better. It took Europe two of the most devastating wars in history to realize that warring between nations was just not a sustainable way of life any more. Problem is that with current technology wars in Africa can be very very nasty.

Problem is that with current technology wars in Africa can be very very nasty.
That is true, though does really nasty technologies aren´t available there, yet.
One important thing is therefore to prevent the spread of WMD. In that respect Iran and North Korea are key issues. Especially it must be ashured that the big arms seller - North Korea - doesn´t proliferate WMD.

this thread seams to be pointing something realy obivous The UN IS A POWERLESS BIT OF Shit.

The UN is only as powerful or useless as it's members. It's not up to the UN to do any thing, as stated, it's up to the member states. The "UN" is really only a name. It's only as useful or not based on the sum of it's parts.

Perhaps it is time to do away with the UN. It has always just been an extention of the United States any way. The only things that have ever gotten done have been at the whim of the USA. There have been a few times when other member states have talked the USA into some thing.. but usually it's what the USA wants, the USA gets. Times have changed. The world appears no longer willing to cave to the will of the USA. So perhaps it is time for the UN to be done away with.

Then each country can follow the United States new lead in the world in the last 4 years. Do whatever they want, when they want and no rules. That's what the United States is doing, so should every one else.

Times have changed. The world appears no longer willing to cave to the will of the USA. So perhaps it is time for the UN to be done away with.


Just because it dosen't kiss the USA's ass it should be got rid of? Thats bull

Do whatever they want, when they want and no rules. That's what the United States is doing, so should every one else.
Don´t pretend that others care about the rules. When President Chirac was criticized in 1995/96 for nuclera tests in the pacific he said: Je pisse d´UNO - I give a shit for the UN.
Its not a new thing really.
Though it is nice to keep it as a debatting society. It hasn´t been much else the last 60 years anyway.

Don´t pretend that others care about the rules. When President Chirac was criticized in 1995/96 for nuclera tests in the pacific he said: Je pisse d´UNO - I give a shit for the UN.
Its not a new thing really.
Though it is nice to keep it as a debatting society. It hasn´t been much else the last 60 years anyway.

News Flash! The world is not only made up of the United States and France, although one would be hard pressed to know that from what we see and hear these days.

News Flash! The world is not only made up of the United States and France, although one would be hard pressed to know that from what we see and hear these days.
I know that:
But not every country of the world is equally relevant. The US is more relevant than Luxemburg. Canada is less relevant than the US but more relevant than Luxemburg.
The permanent members of the Security Council - US, Britain, France, Russia, China are more relevant than non-members of it - like Canada, Germany or Japan.
Economically the US is most important, followed by Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada. Canada is the least relevant in that group.
And militarily the US is more relevant than the 22 countries following.
Russia, Britain, France not that relevant, but still relevant and the others - outside of their own territory - out of little or none relevance. That is the reality.

Maybe, because as the US has said, it is impotent? What will it take to get the UN to do something other than pass unenforced resolutions?

Its since the media put it to the attention that there is finally being talked about it. The genocide is going on for much much longer, but the media had Iraq to put in the highlights... The nations are now talking about genocide and pointing fingers, but before many ppl knew about it, they kept their mouths shut.

I know that:
But not every country of the world is equally relevant. The US is more relevant than Luxemburg. Canada is less relevant than the US but more relevant than Luxemburg.
The permanent members of the Security Council - US, Britain, France, Russia, China are more relevant than non-members of it - like Canada, Germany or Japan.
Economically the US is most important, followed by Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada. Canada is the least relevant in that group.
And militarily the US is more relevant than the 22 countries following.
Russia, Britain, France not that relevant, but still relevant and the others - outside of their own territory - out of little or none relevance. That is the reality.

I suppose if that is how we evaluate what is relevant. To me what is relevant is who has the best ideas. Sadly the countries that you consider the most relevant are not always the smartest people at any given time. I know perhaps I'm living in a dream world, but I had hoped I would live to see the day when there was some thing more important then how many guns you own, like intelligence would rule and not money and guns! I know, how very idealistic of me.

I suppose if that is how we evaluate what is relevant. To me what is relevant is who has the best ideas. Sadly the countries that you consider the most relevant are not always the smartest people at any given time. I know perhaps I'm living in a dream world, but I had hoped I would live to see the day when there was some thing more important then how many guns you own, like intelligence would rule and not money and guns! I know, how very idealistic of me.
That is naive. The stronger one is "right". He is the one who is writing history. Look to the US. Who cares about the Indians anymore? They are irrelevant and absorbed into the "land of the free".
How many nations do you think the Romans have eaten? How many the Chinese or Russians?
And how many others have tried the same - some more cruel, some less cruel.
That is the way historic works. That was always the case and it is still the case and going to be the case.
I see the US not as angels. But so far they were the most humane. And if the US dominates the world it may be an opportunity to spread democracy and freedom around the world under American leadership.
Because of that I support a Pax Americana - if the US is having a viable concept for it. There are doubts about that.
But if things in the Middle East go wrong - guess what the US would do: They would go to Ankara (Turkey). Turkey was up untill 1923 the Ottoman Empire which ruled almost the entire Middle East. They would than say: Please take over - you can annex Northern Iraq including the oil field of Kirkuk - and you may take over the mission.
Ok, you could say it would be a betrayl of the Kurds. But who cares about the Kurds anyway.
And if it is going right the US is going to stabilize the region and democratise it. Otherwise Turkey may be forced to step in - the are situated in the region, they can´t get around it, fundamentalists regimes would be a thread for Turkey as well - and does things in another way.

That is naive.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's not being naive, I know full well how it works. I said it was idealistic. I don't ever expect it to happen. I have come to the conclusion the world is pretty much fucked. It's just a matter of time before we destroy ourselves one way or the other.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's not being naive, I know full well how it works. I said it was idealistic. I don't ever expect it to happen. I have come to the conclusion the world is pretty much fucked. It's just a matter of time before we destroy ourselves one way or the other.
Idealism is good. The Americans are also very idealistic.
Though the world is a dangerous place. Are we in the west to blame for that?
We are the most peaceful societies today.
But the Middle East is really fucked. Guess how the terrorists get the money? It is of course the donations of "charities" who spread this ideology. Hamas, Dschihad, Saudi, Iranian and other organisation spread this hatred. Saudi organisation didn´t only play a role in Afghanistan but they also meddle in the Caucasus. Iran meddles in Lebanon (Hizbullah), Saudi and other Arab "charities"
in the rest of the crisis region around Israel - especially in Jordan and the palestinian territories (Hamas).
The US is really fucked by this and has no lost patience with this region. So, it is trying to transform it.
I for my part understand this decision, though it is a very risky strategy.

Why isnt the UN doing anything about the Sudan? Well it could be because Pakistan and China dont want anything to do be done. China gets 8.8% of its oil from the Sudan and Pakistan gets a slightly larger amount. They feel if anything is done that it will hurt their shipments of the new black death. But hey, most people dont care because the Sudan cant be tied into the US or as one of the US's cold war dealings so no one here is going to crusade and make a fuss.

Why isnt the UN doing anything about the Sudan? Well it could be because Pakistan and China dont want anything to do be done. China gets 8.8% of its oil from the Sudan and Pakistan gets a slightly larger amount. They feel if anything is done that it will hurt their shipments of the new black death. But hey, most people dont care because the Sudan cant be tied into the US or as one of the US's cold war dealings so no one here is going to crusade and make a fuss.
Well, if you take about the UN acting than you are de facto talking about the Security Council.
And that has five permanent members.
As far as I know there was never a case when the five permanent agreed - or none vetod something - that there wasn´t a majority for actions.
So, it rather depends on China and probably Russia than on Pakistan - which is just a non-permanent member. And its membership ends on December 31, 2004 anyway.
I don´t think that Pakistan would vote against it if a majority be secured simply in order not to allionate the US. Pakistan depends on its support and aid.

China is already against any sort of sanctions against the Sudan. And I know how the Security Council and the UN work. No need to talk down to me like I'm some random generalite.

China is already against any sort of sanctions against the Sudan. And I know how the Security Council and the UN work. No need to talk down to me like I'm some random generalite.
Ok, I wonder what the Russian position is.
The Sudanese government certainly remains on its position that it has the right to fight rebells and terrorists and that it has nothing to do with atrocities.
And since not long ago it signed a peace deal with the southern rebels I doubt that anyone wants to endanger that by going for an military intervention.

China is already against any sort of sanctions against the Sudan. And I know how the Security Council and the UN work. No need to talk down to me like I'm some random generalite.

We really shouldn't be all that surprised, all 5 members no exceptions vote and or veto what is in their best interest, no one else's, not even if it's in the best interest of an ally. It's always about #1 and it always will be as long as the system works the way it does. I certainly can't imagine any country putting another countries interest ahead of their own. We see it every day.

We really shouldn't be all that surprised, all 5 members no exceptions vote and or veto what is in their best interest, no one else's, not even if it's in the best interest of an ally. It's always about #1 and it always will be as long as the system works the way it does. I certainly can't imagine any country putting another countries interest ahead of their own. We see it every day.
But wouldn´t it be irresponsible and stupid of a country not to act that way?
As long as the veto system remains in place the UN remains irrelevant. And none of the permanent member are going to give it up. The UN is - I more and more agree to the neocons in that respect - unreformable.
Probably it would be better by all of us just to smach it and to build a new one.
Nato or probably the G8 - enlarged to a G9 or G10 - could take over the role of the Security Council.
Probably this sort of group is more able to do that - of course without Veto rights for any country except the US.
That would probably a system the US may consider to be a part of.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's not being naive, I know full well how it works. I said it was idealistic.
I´ve become more cynical due to this debatte as well.
But that is probably a healing shock. We have to become more realistic. That needs time.
We believed to much in peace, egg cake and dialogue to see that there a people that are not capable to have a dialogue with. That there are many risks and threats who threaten the security of all of us in the West. The US is - in my view - due to 9/11 more advanced in the realisation process than other countries of the west. Probably it needs till we go through the same experience till our societies realize the amount of the thread by terrorism.

it's not part of the game mechanics

it's not part of the game mechanics
???

ohw wait, this is not about NS?

I´ve become more cynical due to this debatte as well.
But that is probably a healing shock. We have to become more realistic. That needs time.
We believed to much in peace, egg cake and dialogue to see that there a people that are not capable to have a dialogue with. That there are many risks and threats who threaten the security of all of us in the West. The US is - in my view - due to 9/11 more advanced in the realisation process than other countries of the west. Probably it needs till we go through the same experience till our societies realize the amount of the thread by terrorism.


How strange, I'd have thought if the U.S was so fully aware of the danger of terrorism they'd be devoting all their resources into stopping it rather than going on a fools war in Iraq. It's all well and good talking about being "tough on terrorism" but if Bush does an appalling job of fighting it then he can talk about it all the time and not achieve anything as he has done. He'll still probably get re-elected for it though.

Probably this sort of group is more able to do that - of course without Veto rights for any country except the US.


And who would join a group where the US has the right to stop any action? Please, get serious.

No country should have veto rights, all countries should abide by the UN (or whatever the new body is named) resolutions even if they go against their particular interests, and the UN must be given some teeth (economic and military) to enforce them.

Perhaps it is time to do away with the UN. It has always just been an extention of the United States any way. The only things that have ever gotten done have been at the whim of the USA. There have been a few times when other member states have talked the USA into some thing.. but usually it's what the USA wants, the USA gets. Times have changed. The world appears no longer willing to cave to the will of the USA. So perhaps it is time for the UN to be done away with.


I think it's closer to the truth to say that the UN doesn't get interested in anything until the US gets motivated enough to pay for it. Nothing happens in the UN until the US starts spreading around bribes. How sad is that? "Civilized" nations are willing to allow genocide while waiting for someone else to open their pocketbook. Happily sitting quietly while the atrocities happen, not just this time, but pretty much every time.
The US is criticized when it waits for the UN, and doubly so if it decides to stop waiting.

The UN would cease to exist if America pulled out because the American taxpayer's wallet would leave with it.

IMO, get the US out of the UN & get the UN out of the US.

The UN is - I more and more agree to the neocons in that respect - unreformable.
Probably it would be better by all of us just to smash it and to build a new one.
Nato or probably the G8 - enlarged to a G9 or G10 - could take over the role of the Security Council.
Probably this sort of group is more able to do that - of course without Veto rights for any country except the US.
That would probably a system the US may consider to be a part of.
No country should have veto rights, all countries should abide by the UN (or whatever the new body is named) resolutions even if they go against their particular interests, and the UN must be given some teeth (economic and military) to enforce them.

I agree, unreformable. But who knows what we would end up with?

Hmm, ten heads and seven horns....where have I heard that before?

Even if the US goverment agreed to a system where America answers to an International Body, it wouldn't last long.
US citizens are too jealous of their sovereignty. Many hate having to answer to their own government as much as they do these days.

A textbook example of what the US citizenry would not abide.

And who would join a group where the US has the right to stop any action? Please, get serious.
No country should have veto rights, all countries should abide by the UN (or whatever the new body is named) resolutions even if they go against their particular interests, and the UN must be given some teeth (economic and military) to enforce them.
That is unrealistic. And by the way. The current UN is a instituition where the US can stop everything important (resolutions of the general assembly are not legally binding, that is only the case for resolutions of the security council) due to their veto right. Actually five powers have the right to Veto everything today: the US, China, Russia, Britain and France. I want to reduce it to one.
Reason: the US wouldn´t accept to loose its veto. And the others? They wouldn´t accept it as well. And that leds to the stagnation of the UN. If reforms aren´t possible - which seems to be the case - the UN system is going to collapse some day anyway.
And then there would be the need to establish a new one.

I agree, unreformable. But who knows what we would end up with?
Hmm, ten heads and seven horns....where have I heard that before?
Even if the US goverment agreed to a system where America answers to an International Body, it wouldn't last long.
US citizens are too jealous of their sovereignty. Many hate having to answer to their own government as much as they do these days.
A textbook example of what the US citizenry would not abide.
Thats why I suggested that the US should be the only one with a veto right. That would enshure that the US doesn´t feel its sovereignity threatened. However noone else should have one - in order to establish a more efficent system than the UN which fails due to its five veto powers. That are just too many.
One should be enough.
Of course most would see it as unjustified that the US should be the only one with Veto right. But it would only represent its power (25% of world GDP, military spending higher than the following 22 countries accumulated together). Therefore it would be a much more realistic concept than the current UN system.