NationStates Jolt Archive

http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/006979.shtml

Ah, well that explains why they've done so little about it. A UN report soon to be issued says that there was no genocide in Darfur.



A genocide has not been committed in Darfur, a keenly awaited United Nations report says, according to Sudan's foreign minister.

If genocide was found to have taken place, signatories to a UN convention are legally obliged to act to end it.

The report has been given to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who said it would be published shortly.

More than 70,000 people have been killed and two million forced to flee their homes in Darfur.

"We have a copy of that report and they didn't say there is a genocide," said Mustafa Osman Ismail. Article continues.

Link to actual BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4222899.stm



Is there a reason we haven't blown up the UN building in New York yet?

Well it would look just a smidgen hypocritical to blow 'em for doing what the US is.

Helping out only when it feels like it.

:p

Is there a reason we haven't blown up the UN building in New York yet?

Um ... collateral damage? :D

Yes, I always believe what the UN has to say.
Yes, there was no corruption in the Oil for Food, either.

Because if there was a genocide, then they'd be obligated to do something - this way no genocide, no lay out of monies that could be better spent sending the Secretary General on a skiing trip...

Tear the UN down, ta heck with collateral damage..or if the Europeans love it so much send it brick by brick over to France and let them cover the expenses.

The part I love is that a lot of other nations think, "we should never believe the US, after all, they lied (or their intelligence service was stupid) about WMD".

They then go on to conclude that they should always believe the UN, as they believe it to be an impartial organization.

About as impartial as my rectum.

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE SAYING.

I actually believed that the average NS poster had the memory and intellegence to outwit a small rock but i am apparently incorrect.

Sure, the UN hasnt be open and honest about everything it has done, and its now trying badly to cover up its mistakes to try and avoid being ripped apart by the US establishment out for blood over its treachery earlier.

But seriously, have you never looked at every single statement from the whitehouse and thought "thats a pathetic attempt to cover up a mistake" if you havn't done so youve never read one.

The American government is famous for lying and twisting sceinctific reports to get what it wants. It sparked an, unsuprisingly poorly reported, rebellion in the sceintific community recently because they were fed up with its constant and blatant lies, and the freedom it has to just make up reports and have tem passed as truth over the heads of more worthy and reputable organisations.

IN FACT YES.

Take the damn UN headquaters brick by brick and move it to France, at least if it were in France i could rest easy that it was in bad hands, rather than incopetent ones.

It's amazing how much evidence has been gathered about something that is not happening.

Then again, you must remember that Sudan is on the UN's human rights commission. Go figure.

But seriously, have you never looked at every single statement from the whitehouse and thought "thats a pathetic attempt to cover up a mistake" if you havn't done so youve never read one.


The problem is not that the US lies or distorts. Sure, it does. We also catch heat for it, if you haven't noticed. But the only nation that gives the UN heat for lying and being corrupt is the US.

I don't hear France trying to hold the UN accountable for anything, ever.

Personally, I think the US should remain a member of the Security Council, but veto at random in order to completely stymie every rational action it tries to take. That's what a lot of other Security Council members have been doing for decades. Perhaps if the US starts acting like everyone else in the world, and makes sure the UN never does anything except fill its own pockets, everyone will be a lot happier.

Unfortunately - as noted in the first article - the UN is saddled with a precise definition of genocide. In this case, that being whether there was intent by the Sudanese government to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group in Darfur.

Destroy equates to total eradication, not just a whole lot of abuse.

Now first off the links between the government and many of the rebel groups is unproven, and second they have not been able to determine a concerted effort to eradiacte a people.

This, by the way, is part of why Saddam's actions against the Kurds was not called "genocide" in the 80s. Because although he put down the Peshmurga rebels brutally, he did not go on an effort to completely rid the north of all Kurds.

For legal purposes within the UN there is a difference between atrocities and genocide, and as Kofi Anan has stated:

"Regardless of how the commission describes what is going on in Darfur, there is no doubt that serious crimes have been committed."

"Action will have to be taken," to end the Darfur conflict, he said


Tossing out a word like genocide to equate to any atrocities over a certain level does not help situations any. They are, after all, not entirely the same thing.

Although I will certainly agree with the basic precmise that the Security Council's inability to get their shit together with respect to the Sudan has been very discouraging.

Although I will certainly agree with the basic precmise that the Security Council's inability to get their shit together with respect to the Sudan has been very discouraging.

The fact that the UN does not have a true Executive to which powers have been granted to resolve problems, and that fact that the UN has only a committee that is guaranteed to nearly always fudge the definitions and veto the rest means that by design, the UN is a place where nothing gets done unless more than a few of the permanent members of the SC decide that they want to do something.

Otherwise, it sits back, and sells tickets to the slaughter.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1291827.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104814/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104210/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3795269.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/60minutes/main648277.shtml
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-index-eng
http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/august_2004/politics003.html
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040923sudan
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101041004-702074,00.html

I know a Sudanese family who escaped with their lives and now live here in the states. I wonder if they would consider the depredations of the janjaweed an attempt at "genocide".