Sunday, September 17, 2006

Talk about an understatement....on Darfur...

As quoted in the Washington Post

Antonio Guterres, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, said international divisions had allowed the Sudanese government greater scope to maneuver.

"The problem is the international community is not clearly united in a front to make sure that things really happen," Guterres told BBC radio.

"The fact that the international community is not really able to act together forcefully . . . creates an environment in which it is much easier to do things which are being done."


creates an environment in which it is much easier to do things which are being done...Like murder? Like rape? Like Genocide?

Tony Blair can talk about offering incentives till he's blue in the face, the problem is not enough other nations care. The main reason the African Union failed in the first place was they didn't get the necessary support.

Since the fighting began in 2003, war and disease have killed as many as 450,000 people in Darfur and driven more than 2 million from their homes.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir doesn't want the UN there because it might actually force his government to stop killing people. Yet, the UN plays games and tries to offer "incentives". He's threatening to kill UN troops if they enter his country because the UN is weak. The international community has no power because they can't even agree on what to do anymore and even those like al-Bashir know the UN won't do anything. NATO can't even muster up enough troops for Afghanistan. Quite a bit of the responsibility for all of this can be laid directly at the door of the United States for deciding the war in Iraq was necessary. The rest can be laid at the door of the UN for their inaction. Those countries that don't want the US to hold so much power could demonstrate they really mean it by stepping up, especially in Darfur.

"NATO's credibility and future are at stake in Afghanistan," said Pierre Lellouche, president of the French delegation in NATO's parliamentary assembly. "They can't fail, otherwise NATO will lose its credibility."

I think it's too late Pierre, it's obvious neither NATO or the UN has any credibility anymore and unfortunately the ones who will end up paying for this are the ones who had hope that the international community would help them.

4 comments:

Scott G said...

This is part of the reason why I think pulling out of Somalia after the Mogadishu incident was such a bad idea. For one, it was a just cause that had out troops there to help those that could not defend themselves. But, it also left the impression that we would not risk our own lives for those in Africa.

Maybe destroying the Somali warlords would not have solved all future issues, but we could have at least shown that we were serious. These groups have no real force to fear and the UN troops always have their hands tied because people are afraid of confrontation. Although I think violence should be the last resort, sometimes it does have to be an option. And sometimes if the situation calls for it, you need to crush the milita groups' will to live.

Although I think Iraq has been a distraction, I don't see us doing much to help in a peaceful time.

Unknown said...

You may be right on even if it was not for Iraq the US would not be doing more but it's hard to see not just the US but the UN continue to ignore what is happening there.

Scott G said...

This goes along with what you wrote.

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

The UN and NATO are a pair of old, pathetic, toothless lions. They shake their manes, roar, bellow, and pass much gas.

No one pays them any attention any more, except for, maybe, that passing gas thingie.

Organizations like these have a lifespan of effectiveness that has yet to be explained to them.

You organize, you get things done and you die.

Maybe someone should send them a wreath...