NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry if there's already a thread about this.

The UN is cutting in half its daily rations in Sudan's Darfur region because of a severe funding shortfall. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4954096.stm)

From May the ration will be half the minimum amount required each day. The cut comes as the UN said Darfur's malnutrition rates are rising again.

Nearly 3m people depend on food aid after being driven off their land.

But little has come from the EU and nothing at all from any of Sudan's partners in the Arab League, except Libya, the World Food Programme says.

"This is one of the hardest decisions I have ever made," James Morris, head of the WFP, said.

Despite a ceasefire and on-going peace negotiations, large areas of Darfur are now affected by fighting between government forces, militias and rebels.

This is also hampering the delivery of food and other aid operations.

This really does seem like kicking a guy when he's down. Apparently the ration cuts are so that by the "hunger season", there will be some food left.

The aid amounts received are also worthy of note - the EU have contributed little.

Sorry if there's already a thread about this.



This really does seem like kicking a guy when he's down. Apparently the ration cuts are so that by the "hunger season", there will be some food left.

The aid amounts received are also worthy of note - the EU have contributed little.
The EU don't care about black people.

Seriously though, when the fuck is the world going to do something about this situation? After the holocaust everyone said never again. Well, it's happening again, just like it did in Rawanda.

Seriously though, when the fuck is the world going to do something about this situation? After the holocaust everyone said never again. Well, it's happening again, just like it did in Rawanda.
I suppose there is no major "incentive" for governments to act, given that, to my knowledge, there is nothing of immediate political/military/economic concern in that region to major Western nations.

Well, it's happening again, just like it did in Rwanda.
The US and UK decided against an intervention in Rwanda on the grounds of cost - it took place in the middle of the worst shit in Bosnia, and their resources set aside for benevolent military action were fully committed. Allowing the genocide in Rwanda to proceed was an economic decision.

Similarly we now have the War on Tehrr, which means that humanitarian intervention in pretty much any conflict not connected to this project is off the table.

Similarly we now have the War on Tehrr, which means that humanitarian intervention in pretty much any conflict not connected to this project is off the table.
Bingo.

But, I'm not even saying there is a need for a military response. I think there should be one, but it's not a necessity. Providing there are enough Peacekeepers to ensure security for food and medicine supplies, then that would be a start. This isn't just a lack of active involvement: it's apathy manifested in shallow pockets.

The US and UK decided against an intervention in Rwanda on the grounds of cost - it took place in the middle of the worst shit in Bosnia, and their resources set aside for benevolent military action were fully committed. Allowing the genocide in Rwanda to proceed was an economic decision.

Similarly we now have the War on Tehrr, which means that humanitarian intervention in pretty much any conflict not connected to this project is off the table.
Bin Laden found sanctuary in Sudan for several years. He was part owner of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant Clinton blew up. I'm sure we could tie Sudan in with terrorism if we really tried. Hell, they tied Iraq in with terrorism with no evidence whatsoever.

The US and UK decided against an intervention in Rwanda on the grounds of cost - it took place in the middle of the worst shit in Bosnia, and their resources set aside for benevolent military action were fully committed. Allowing the genocide in Rwanda to proceed was an economic decision.

Similarly we now have the War on Tehrr, which means that humanitarian intervention in pretty much any conflict not connected to this project is off the table.

Somehow, I doubt that France, Russia, or China were pushing very hard for Rwanda either. Unless a country has oil, nobody gives a damn about them. :(

This isn't just a lack of active involvement: it's apathy manifested in shallow pockets.
*Shrugs*

They just didn't budget for it. Any sort of contingency budgets for that sort of thing have long ago been raided anyway. And bureaucracies are victims of their own rules, in the sense that they can't just say "Oops, we'd better redistribute funding a bit this year", there are proper channels and little room for maneuvre. It is all up to the personal initiative of the national leaders themselves, and political risk is always minimised through inaction.

Somehow, I doubt that France, Russia, or China were pushing very hard for Rwanda either.
Yep. They all said it was an internal affair.

Somehow, I doubt that France, Russia, or China were pushing very hard for Rwanda either. Unless a country has oil, nobody gives a damn about them. :(
France was, actually. They and the Belgians were the only people with troops there, and they grovelled for reinforcements right up to the end. There's not much you can achieve with a single regiment. The best they could do was keep the bridges open so people could run. :(

Don't forget also that this came shortly after the collapse of the USSR and those two other countries were still unofficially considered enemies.

France was, actually. They and the Belgians were the only people with troops there, and they grovelled for reinforcements right up to the end. There's not much you can achieve with a single regiment. The best they could do was keep the bridges open so people could run. :(

Don't forget also that this came shortly after the collapse of the USSR and those two other countries were still unofficially considered enemies.
In SC meetings, the French did not argue for involvement. I have no doubt their workers and soldiers on the ground called for reinforcement, but in terms of multilateral action, they didn't break ranks. And whilst, yes, there were many mitigating factors, that calling for humanitarian intervention, especially given what was happening in Yugoslavia at the same time, is always difficult, and hindsight is a wonderful thing, I still think that it was a failure, and one that could have turned out very differently. As DCD said, what is disturbing is that no one seems willing to remember any of the lessons.

In SC meetings, the French did not argue for involvement. I have no doubt their workers and soldiers on the ground called for reinforcement, but in terms of multilateral action, they didn't break ranks. And whilst, yes, there were many mitigating factors, that calling for humanitarian intervention, especially given what was happening in Yugoslavia at the same time, is always difficult, and hindsight is a wonderful thing, I still think that it was a failure, and one that could have turned out very differently. As DCD said, what is disturbing is that no one seems willing to remember any of the lessons.
Well, France was committed in Bosnia too. I guess their beancounters said the same thing behind closed doors - that they could only afford one operation that year. I agree, it was a disaster, but hindsight reveals the cold reality of the "death by bureaucracy" which transpired. I guess it's nice to say people should have learned from it. But once you start looking at Darfur as a worthy cause, there are so many other places which aren't working very well, and before long you are looking at the very style of intervention that gives rise to terrorism.

You too can help The March of Genocide (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2006/04/onthe.html) --- by doing nothing.

Well, France was committed in Bosnia too. I guess their beancounters said the same thing behind closed doors - that they could only afford one operation that year. I agree, it was a disaster, but hindsight reveals the cold reality of the "death by bureaucracy" which transpired. I guess it's nice to say people should have learned from it. But once you start looking at Darfur as a worthy cause, there are so many other places which aren't working very well, and before long you are looking at the very style of intervention that gives rise to terrorism.
True. Which is why that's not a responsible policy. But, as I was saying, increasing aid disbursements would be. If the US simply doesn't trust the UN to handle the aid, then it can do it itself, or form or use another organization. But, however badly the EU has failed and the US is "good" for giving money, $188 million is nothing.

The Cat-Tribe: ha. Funny, but it really shouldn't be.

The US gives Billions of dollars each year to other countries. The US makes up about 25% of the money to Darfur by itself. 80% out of the money raised. If the other countries gave half of what the USA gives, there would never be a shortage. :upyours:

The US gives Billions of dollars each year to other countries.
So do many other countries. The US's per capita contributions are lower than many other nations, even those of lesser economic development.

However, I did actually point out this wasn't a thread trying to "blame it all on the Yanks".

The US makes up about 25% of the money to Darfur by itself. 80% out of the money raised. If the other countries gave half of what the USA gives, there would never be a shortage.
Do you have a source for this?