NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems like every time someone in the world wants a bail out they turn to the US and say we should fund it. Why the hell can't the EU fund it? It is their project and if they don't have enough money they should go back to the member states to get it.

END OF RANT!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070629/wl_nm/france_eu_darfur_dc_1;_ylt=AmQ9PkRmPOX29dioUSyzvL1lM3wV

EU says runs out of cash for Darfur peacekeepers

By Brian Rohan Fri Jun 29, 1:37 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - European Union funding for an African peacekeeping force in Darfur has run out, and the United States and Arab League should help cover the costs until a replacement force arrives, the EU's aid chief said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

"At the Commission level we are dry and we cannot find any more additional resources," European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Louis Michel told a news conference.

The Commission and EU states have given over 400 million euros ($537.8 million) to the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) since it was deployed to Sudan's violent western Darfur region in 2004 to try to ease the humanitarian crisis there.

The United Nations has proposed working with the African Union to send a better-equipped force to the area, but Michel said AMIS still needed cash before the new operation started.

"Other donors besides the Commission must find the resources to make the transition from the AMIS force to the African Union/United Nations hybrid force," Michel said.

"I would like to call on the United States and the Arab League to contribute to financing this transition," he said.

Diplomats say a resolution to send the new international force could come to a vote at the U.N. Security Council next week, but that peacekeepers could take six months to deploy.

Some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million driven from their homes in the conflict, which began in 2003 when non-Arab rebels took up arms, accusing the government of ignoring their plight in the remote, arid region. Sudan mobilized Arab militias to quell the revolt.

Some militia members, known locally as Janjaweed, embarked on a campaign of killing, pillage and rape that the United States has said amounts to genocide. Sudan denies it supported the Janjaweed, and calls them outlaws.

Michel attended an international meeting on Darfur in Paris on Monday and said he had also discussed funding for the current AMIS mission with President Nicolas Sarkozy this week.

It seems like every time someone in the world wants a bail out they turn to the US and say we should fund it. Why the hell can't the EU fund it? It is their project and if they don't have enough money they should go back to the member states to get it.
Yet you defend the US spending $400 Billion to destroy Iraq!! :eek:

Go figure?

Yet you defend the US spending $400 Billion to destroy Iraq!! :eek:

Go figure?

Because explosions are cool.:rolleyes:

Yet you defend the US spending $400 Billion to destroy Iraq!! :eek:

Go figure?

Naw, the real hypocrisy is that the US is asking other nations who didn't want anything to do with Iraq to help foot the bill.

Turnabout is fair play.

Because as an American I care about ending genocide. That is why we should fund ending it.

Well, seeing as the EU is no less than 25 countries, yet we have about as much income as all 25 of them combined...

Well, seeing as the EU is no less than 25 countries, yet we have about as much income as all 25 of them combined...

Remember, only the EU's top six states are larger than California by population, and only 4 by GDP. Quite a few US states are comparable to EU states in population and GDP. And we have rather more states than they do.

Our pockets are empty here in the US too. Funding has dried up..... On the other hand I keep hearing how much CASH China has. Maybe time to pass the plate.

Our pockets are empty here in the US too. Funding has dried up..... On the other hand I keep hearing how much CASH China has. Maybe time to pass the plate.

But Americans in the upper circles like to go "Oh noes! China is arming itself! We're doomed!111"

Our pockets are empty here in the US too. Funding has dried up..... On the other hand I keep hearing how much CASH China has. Maybe time to pass the plate.

China enjoys very cordial relations with the Bashir regime. Don't count on them funding it.

It seems like every time someone in the world wants a bail out they turn to the US...

What the fuck are you talking about?

Remember, only the EU's top six states are larger than California by population, and only 4 by GDP. Quite a few US states are comparable to EU states in population and GDP. And we have rather more states than they do.
Uh? Are you trying to say that the US has a higher GDP and a larger population than the EU? Because that just isn't so, no mather what weird logic you use.

GDP:
European Union 14,527,140
United States 13,244,550

Population:
European Union 494,900,000
United States 302,500,000


Anyway, I think the US should give the money, as they probably will.

GDP:
European Union 14,527,140
United States 13,244,550


Much higher debt and deficit in the USA. That may be a real reason.

frankly the US could really do with the brownie points in the international relations game. it's in their best interest to help out.

It seems like every time someone in the world wants a bail out they turn to the US and say we should fund it. Why the hell can't the EU fund it? It is their project and if they don't have enough money they should go back to the member states to get it.

END OF RANT!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070629/wl_nm/france_eu_darfur_dc_1;_ylt=AmQ9PkRmPOX29dioUSyzvL1lM3wV

EU says runs out of cash for Darfur peacekeepers

By Brian Rohan Fri Jun 29, 1:37 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - European Union funding for an African peacekeeping force in Darfur has run out, and the United States and Arab League should help cover the costs until a replacement force arrives, the EU's aid chief said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

"At the Commission level we are dry and we cannot find any more additional resources," European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Louis Michel told a news conference.

The Commission and EU states have given over 400 million euros ($537.8 million) to the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) since it was deployed to Sudan's violent western Darfur region in 2004 to try to ease the humanitarian crisis there.

The United Nations has proposed working with the African Union to send a better-equipped force to the area, but Michel said AMIS still needed cash before the new operation started.

"Other donors besides the Commission must find the resources to make the transition from the AMIS force to the African Union/United Nations hybrid force," Michel said.

"I would like to call on the United States and the Arab League to contribute to financing this transition," he said.

Diplomats say a resolution to send the new international force could come to a vote at the U.N. Security Council next week, but that peacekeepers could take six months to deploy.

Some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million driven from their homes in the conflict, which began in 2003 when non-Arab rebels took up arms, accusing the government of ignoring their plight in the remote, arid region. Sudan mobilized Arab militias to quell the revolt.

Some militia members, known locally as Janjaweed, embarked on a campaign of killing, pillage and rape that the United States has said amounts to genocide. Sudan denies it supported the Janjaweed, and calls them outlaws.

Michel attended an international meeting on Darfur in Paris on Monday and said he had also discussed funding for the current AMIS mission with President Nicolas Sarkozy this week.

Because whether you like it or not, The United States of America is the single largest beneficiary of global access to the commons, the single largest beneficiary of international organizations, and by tacit agreement is the only nation with military control of the global commons. As such, when people need stuff from the international community, it's our responsibility as greatest beneficiary and military adjudicator of the international global order to provide.

Put very simply, we are incredibly wealthy precisely because for the last 60 years we have determined how the international political order is made and who benefits. By virtue of our benefit, we're the first guy on the block people come to when the charity plate comes around as well.

Because whether you like it or not, The United States of America is the single largest beneficiary of global access to the commons, the single largest beneficiary of international organizations, and by tacit agreement is the only nation with military control of the global commons. As such, when people need stuff from the international community, it's our responsibility as greatest beneficiary and military adjudicator of the international global order to provide.

Put very simply, we are incredibly wealthy precisely because for the last 60 years we have determined how the international political order is made and who benefits. By virtue of our benefit, we're the first guy on the block people come to when the charity plate comes around as well.

Don't even try. You should know by now that this forum is full of people who don't think those who benefit most from a system should contribute to it at all.

Well, seeing as the EU is no less than 25 countries, yet we have about as much income as all 25 of them combined...

27 now.

Remember, only the EU's top six states are larger than California by population, and only 4 by GDP. Quite a few US states are comparable to EU states in population and GDP. And we have rather more states than they do.

The EU does not have any states. It has countries.

Why the heck should the U.S. fund it?

It shouldn't.

The EU does not have any states. It has countries.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

What's with the rolling eyes? It's the truth.

It seems like every time someone in the world wants a bail out they turn to the US and say we should fund it. Why the hell can't the EU fund it?
We already have. With quite a large amount of money, actually.

Had the US government not set up the WTO / World Bank etc. in the 1940s-50s to make it look like a generous economic power, people wouldn't ask. But hey, they did, so it happens.

The poster obviously has never heard a proper definition of "state."

It seems like every time someone in the world wants a bail out they turn to the US and say we should fund it. Why the hell can't the EU fund it? It is their project and if they don't have enough money they should go back to the member states to get it.

END OF RANT!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070629/wl_nm/france_eu_darfur_dc_1;_ylt=AmQ9PkRmPOX29dioUSyzvL1lM3wV

EU says runs out of cash for Darfur peacekeepers

By Brian Rohan Fri Jun 29, 1:37 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - European Union funding for an African peacekeeping force in Darfur has run out, and the United States and Arab League should help cover the costs until a replacement force arrives, the EU's aid chief said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

"At the Commission level we are dry and we cannot find any more additional resources," European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Louis Michel told a news conference.

The Commission and EU states have given over 400 million euros ($537.8 million) to the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) since it was deployed to Sudan's violent western Darfur region in 2004 to try to ease the humanitarian crisis there.

The United Nations has proposed working with the African Union to send a better-equipped force to the area, but Michel said AMIS still needed cash before the new operation started.

"Other donors besides the Commission must find the resources to make the transition from the AMIS force to the African Union/United Nations hybrid force," Michel said.

"I would like to call on the United States and the Arab League to contribute to financing this transition," he said.

Diplomats say a resolution to send the new international force could come to a vote at the U.N. Security Council next week, but that peacekeepers could take six months to deploy.

Some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million driven from their homes in the conflict, which began in 2003 when non-Arab rebels took up arms, accusing the government of ignoring their plight in the remote, arid region. Sudan mobilized Arab militias to quell the revolt.

Some militia members, known locally as Janjaweed, embarked on a campaign of killing, pillage and rape that the United States has said amounts to genocide. Sudan denies it supported the Janjaweed, and calls them outlaws.

Michel attended an international meeting on Darfur in Paris on Monday and said he had also discussed funding for the current AMIS mission with President Nicolas Sarkozy this week.


Stop your whining.....

What's with the rolling eyes? It's the truth.Tell that to the EU (http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm) then. They seem to use the term 'member state' in their official website.

Tell that to the EU (http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm) then. They seem to use the term 'member state' in their official website.

w/e, in this case they're the same thing.

It seems like every time someone in the world wants a bail out they turn to the US and say we should fund it. Why the hell can't the EU fund it? It is their project and if they don't have enough money they should go back to the member states to get it.

END OF RANT!As I seem to remember, the reason why everyone always seems to be turning to the US for aid is that when it is in the media spotlight it, like many other nations, promises everything it can to help. Yet when the gaze of the media shifts it tends to not be as forthcoming as it promised.

Though I am well aware that this problem is not isolated to the USA, it's just they promise the most.

Tell that to the EU (http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm) then. They seem to use the term 'member state' in their official website.Indeed, the word 'state' seems to have 5 distinct meanings as a noun and a further 19 when used as a verb or adjective.

It is just Africa, Darfur could just be put back on red.

I don't see why we give Africa so much money, what have their people ever given us? In the US, you would be called a freeloader if you acted like them.

I also don't think they had large nations acting as charitys in medieval times.
:confused:

It is just Africa, Darfur could just be put back on red.

I don't see why we give Africa so much money, what have their people ever given us? In the US, you would be called a freeloader if you acted like them.

I also don't think they had large nations acting as charitys in medieval times.
:confused:*blinks*

*pushes you towards a library or something. Try reading about what was happening in Africa during the age of sail/exploration*

*blinks*

*pushes you towards a library or something. Try reading about what was happening in Africa during the age of sail/exploration*
What? A load of weak people being sold by Arabs... That really helps science, medicine, literature, ect. The land might have given us the biggest crystal, only for us to chop it in half but what else?

What? A load of weak people being sold by Arabs...

And whites.

And there was far more to it than that. There was killing on a scale rarely matched in history, the pillaging of an entire continent, and more. The record of colonialism (not just in Africa, but everywhere) is more odious as the legacy of Nazism, at least, if you measure in terms of body count.

It is just Africa

Africa is no less important than any other place.

I don't see why we give Africa so much money

We don't, we give their governments money. Instead, we should be encouraging private investment in Africa and voluntary acts of charity.

Why should America help fund saving the Darfur absent providing other material help?

For exactly the same reasons that prompted the following statement from the President on September 20, 2001


This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all.


The Darfur needs America's help. This is a fight for those who believe in progress, pluralism, tolerance, and freedom.

So, are those America's beliefs?

Or aren't they?

*blinks*

*pushes you towards a library or something. Try reading about what was happening in Africa during the age of sail/exploration*

Yup quite a few years ago. Who cares? The ones over here shouldn't.

Then again, we defend them, we pay all this money to make sure a few people don't die. And as soon as we leave it starts again.

So is the story of Africa. 99% idiots, controlled by the 1% with a brain. Who then proceed to kill the idiots.

Uh? Are you trying to say that the US has a higher GDP and a larger population than the EU? Because that just isn't so, no mather what weird logic you use.

If I were trying to say that, I would have said it. A previous poster made the comment that the EU had so many countries but we still have more money, but I thought that comment was rather silly because other than the top 6 EU states many US states are comparable by population and GDP.

The poster obviously has never heard a proper definition of "state."

Me? There are several definitions, and my usage was correct. However, I guess I used "state" like that because 90% of my discussions about the EU have been in French and in French you use the word "état" for countries and US states.

Hell, why do people turn to the US for help?

I mean, Bosnia asked for help to end the genocide, and our response was to bomb the shit out of Sarajevo...

What's with the rolling eyes? It's the truth.

A much better term for U.S.A states would be statoid. The E.U countries and the U.S states can both be called states though there are differences.

A much better term for U.S.A states would be statoid. The E.U countries are states.

Statoid: not a real term.

U.S. State: any one of fifty subnational entities in the United States.

So, how is a fake term better than the actual term?

EDIT: Actually, now that I'm reading back, why did you even bring up US states in the first place? The guy just didn't know there was more than one definition for state...

To quote Pratchett, "The price of being the best is always having to be the best". Not to imply that the U.S. is the "best", but rather to apply the meaning of the quote to the situation at hand.

Our pockets are empty here in the US too. Funding has dried up..... On the other hand I keep hearing how much CASH China has. Maybe time to pass the plate.

If our pockets are so empty, why do we continue to fund a war that has not been giving us net positive returns on our investment?

Also, China is currently funding the regime that is carrying out the genocide.

Because funding it is the right thing to do?

Yet you defend the US spending $400 Billion to destroy Iraq!! :eek:

Go figure?

The problem is we get kicked in the balls when we look out for our own interests, yet when we fund a humanitarian cause, we get kicked in the balls again.

There's got to be a better deal...

The problem is we get kicked in the balls when we look out for our own interests, yet when we fund a humanitarian cause, we get kicked in the balls again.

There's got to be a better deal...

Unfortunately, isolationism won't work in this day and age. :( Sometimes, I'd just like to head for the mountains and live in a cave somewhere. :(

It does seem weird that someone as rich as the EU can't fund a small and lightly armed force down there.

Unfortunately, isolationism won't work in this day and age. :( Sometimes, I'd just like to head for the mountains and live in a cave somewhere. :(
I agree. Clearly the EU needs to realize that it is also an international power and act that way.

Why shouldn't the US be expected to fund the majority of international operations?

The US exists for other countries to criticize for trying to be the world's police while simultaneously taking advantage of that protection by not funding their own military. Do you really expect other nations to divert funding away from their domestic concerns when they can just scream that the US is not doing enough to help out?

I mean... if the US was not pushed into doing everything, the rest of the world might have to take care of things themselves!

Of course when the US gets into some trouble and asks for our help, we're certainly not going to lift a finger, we're having too much fun pointing and laughing.

Because whether you like it or not, The United States of America is the single largest beneficiary of global access to the commons, the single largest beneficiary of international organizations, and by tacit agreement is the only nation with military control of the global commons. As such, when people need stuff from the international community, it's our responsibility as greatest beneficiary and military adjudicator of the international global order to provide.

Put very simply, we are incredibly wealthy precisely because for the last 60 years we have determined how the international political order is made and who benefits. By virtue of our benefit, we're the first guy on the block people come to when the charity plate comes around as well.

Good points, but that is not what the US was meant for. Washington would be outraged to come back and find the US in the state its in now.

Why shouldn't the US be expected to fund the majority of international operations?

The US exists for other countries to criticize for trying to be the world's police while simultaneously taking advantage of that protection by not funding their own military. Do you really expect other nations to divert funding away from their domestic concerns when they can just scream that the US is not doing enough to help out?

I mean... if the US was not pushed into doing everything, the rest of the world might have to take care of things themselves!

Of course when the US gets into some trouble and asks for our help, we're certainly not going to lift a finger, we're having too much fun pointing and laughing.

EU's already poured tons of money into this project; if the US is going to claim moral superiority to the point where it's allowed to initiate war on people it declares despots then it should damn well be ready to help combat obvious genocide; the rest of the world takes care of itself as much as it can but many countries can't seem to do much without the US poking its nose around, and many countries did help the US invasion of Iraq.. and now it's time for the US to help back.

Let me summarize that to the most important point: If you're a big enough world policeman to drop bombs on a country, you better be ready to pony up when another part needs real, actual policing. Even if it (shock and horror) costs some cash.

It does seem weird that someone as rich as the EU can't fund a small and lightly armed force down there.

Odd to me as well...

EU's already poured tons of money into this project...

Which was the EU's call to make...now it's getting too expensive, so they want to pass the buck.

Can't say I'm surprised. Western democracies in general seem to be falling into a rather predictable habit of starting things that they can't finish.

I don't see why we give Africa so much money, what have their people ever given us? In the US, you would be called a freeloader if you acted like them.


It isn't as much as "what have they done for us" (given us oil, amoung other things) as much as, "what have we taken from them?"

As a western country many of whom descended from those who (I think it was Britian) caused the genocide (/contributed to it greatly) you do have a responsibility.

Although I agree, it shouldn't just be the USA that foots the bill Canada, the EU and individuals from acroos the globe also need to help. However, I don't see anything wrong with the EU asking America to help with a humanitarian crisis that big.


So is the story of Africa. 99% idiots, controlled by the 1% with a brain. Who then proceed to kill the idiots.
99% people who cannot escape poverty imposed on them by us vs. the 1% you could get onto 90% of those people have no heart.

The U.S. shouldn't be wholly responsible for any kind of foreign aid - no one should be shouldering the whole burden alone. I don't think we do in most cases, beyond projects we seem particularly interested in, e.g. aid to Egypt and Israel.

The U.S. shouldn't be wholly responsible for any kind of foreign aid - no one should be shouldering the whole burden alone. I don't think we do in most cases, beyond projects we seem particularly interested in, e.g. aid to Egypt and Israel.

This is the bit that bugs me. Why do Israel get any aid? Surely they are a moderately wealthy country (wealthy enough to have a nuclear program anyway). The people in places like Darfur can't even feed themselves.

Perhaps we should look at where aid is going instead

Our pockets are empty here in the US too. Funding has dried up..... On the other hand I keep hearing how much CASH China has. Maybe time to pass the plate.

Maybe time to spend less money on wars. Maybe.:rolleyes:
Oh no, sorry, I take it back, I didn't want to make Dick Cheney and his buddies in the industry cry.;)

It does seem weird that someone as rich as the EU can't fund a small and lightly armed force down there.

1. EU is not a single entity
2. EU budget therefore isn't nowhere near the budgets or GDP of its member nations.
3. Countries in EU are more interested in funding other projects than funding military or peacekeeping forces from a limited pool.
4. Majority of military descisions of EU area are made in NATO and not in EU. Nato is practically led by the US, therefore if USA doesn't support military intervention "EU" (major country-entities in EU) doesn't or can't support it.

I think the key comparison here would be the defence budgets of EU area combined, or even EU itself (WEU, I think) vs. America: USA has the tools & manpower to fund (by funding I mean logistics and manpower support) a peacekeeping project in Ira...erm...I mean whichever backyard country that has oi....erm...I mean in Africa for humane reasons.

Of course when the US gets into some trouble and asks for our help, we're certainly not going to lift a finger, we're having too much fun pointing and laughing.

Actually, Italy and other EU countries sent help to New Orleans after Katrina struck, but the US government managed to lose that in some bloody depot of theirs, so nothing came to the populace of Nouvelle Orleans. Oh well, next time we won't even bother.

1. EU is not a single entity
2. EU budget therefore isn't nowhere near the budgets or GDP of its member nations.


UK Expenditure for 2004: €759 billion
EU budget for 2007-2013: €862 billion

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_budget

You hit the nail on the head there G3N13. It is an illusion that the EU is some powerful, single federal entity like the US. The EU might be heading in that general direction but it has hundreds of little baby steps to take before it gets there..

Let me summarize that to the most important point: If you're a big enough world policeman to drop bombs on a country, you better be ready to pony up when another part needs real, actual policing. Even if it (shock and horror) costs some cash.
Exactly.

Actually, Italy and other EU countries sent help to New Orleans after Katrina struck, but the US government managed to lose that in some bloody depot of theirs, so nothing came to the populace of Nouvelle Orleans. Oh well, next time we won't even bother.
Even Castro and Chavez wanted to help.

Other countries need the US to fund things like this beacuse they can't get it done.

And then, after everything is taken care of, they will sit back and tell us how evil we are.