NEWS: UN Wimps Out on Sudan...Again

POLITICS: UN Wimps Out on Sudan...Again

The United Nations adopted a US-based resolution to take economic "action" against the Sudanese government for the massacre of black citizens in the Western province of Darfur. The term "sanctions" was deleted from the resolution in order to gain the votes of countries that were not fully sold on taking harsher action against Sudan. China and Pakistan abstained from voting.

That's generally what the UN does, wimp out. The United Nations doesn't exactly have a stellar record for conflict resolution. It's still an important forum though, and some of its organizations do important work.

For reference, here are the other current Darfur threads:

This thread was about the lack of sanctions.
This thread was Powell's take.
This thread was Kerry saying that genocide is bad, mmmkay.
This thread was about whether or not the US should get involved.

The first thread on that list talks about why the US eased the wording to _not_ include the word "sanction", but instead refer to the punitive articles of the UN charter.

Thanks for the list. It does seem that the subject has been run into the ground. Perhaps I should have picked a different topic

No, it's all good. I'm just linking so that we don't have the same discussion every time (usually leading back to Iraq).

You're all good; what do _you_ think we should do? Wait for the UN to enforce the 30 day window? Prepare to send troops? Impose our own sanctions?

My first plan of action is to plant WMDs in Darfur (at least the US will show some enthusiasm on the subject). Other than that, I have to think about it for awhile..
It is a topic I'm interested in. During last semester in my Children's Issues in a Global Perspective class, I was dissapointed on the lack of coverage the issue got.

I do wish that a UN peacekeeping force could be sent there.
I do think now that sanctions may make the situation worse. As in Iraq and Cuba, the only people that suffer are the civilians, not those that are targeted (governments, militias). It just makes them angry, toward their situation, their fellow citizens, and the United States.

[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 4:19PM]

[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 4:24PM]

Most of the US turns a blind eye to most of the world. How many people know that a suicide bomber attacked several buildings including the US Embassy in Tashkent today? Very few. /end rant

Sanctions may make it worse or they may not. In one of the other threads, one of the posters argued against sanctions saying that they've never been effective. I disagree. Targeted sanctions, like the ones in Zimbabwe, do affect the morale of the government and the people. In Zimbabwe's case, all of the top officials have been barred from entering the US - and so have their children. Which is important because many of the top corrupt officials had been sending their children to US schools. Part of the idea behind sanctions _is_ to make the people angry - so angry that they will do something about it. Whether that means rising up and revolting or causing the government's ideas to become so unpopular that the government has to change their ideas, sanctions can work, but they are slow.

In this case, I feel that we need a presence on the ground. I'd be in favor of UN peacekeepers if there was an effective UN peacekeeping force; currently there is not. Mixing and matching small units from multiple countries is not the best way to set up a peacekeeping force.

In the absence of a UN force, it is my opinion that the US should deploy a military force to provide security while NGO's deal with the humanitarian issues. It is sad that the US has to be the world's police officer, but that seems to be the way it is.

It is not enough to stand by wringing our hands while another 30,000 are killed.

I refuse to comment on this issue until it gets posted in "Dirty Talk".

I heard on NPR that the punitive articles it refers to include more than just sanctions, such as an embargo or even military intervention. He said that rather than being "weaker" it's mostly just more vauge.

I think the UN wimps out on everything. Whats new with this?

better to wimp out, then bomb thousands of innocent people... just a thought. for every person that had anything to do with this, there will be a hundred innocent people, whos lives are rough enough as it is. peace keeping force may work, as long as no american troops are a part of it. most of the un forces are tired of facing fire from both sides.....

I think that's true. Which is somewhat of a shame, because "vague" in diplomacy means that working out the meaning will take time if they ever go to the punitive measures.

Well, aimless bombing is not going to get anything done; I'll agree with that. As for a UN force without a large US component...

I'll believe it when I see it. Since member countries have to basically fund their contributions and support their soldiers, very few of the UN countries can actually provide a _real_ force. And when they do, the multinational aspect can often cause more problems than it solves (re: Black Hawk Down and the Pakistani UN forces).

I'd guess that all peacekeepers, regardless of UN affialition, are tired of being shot at by both sides in any conflict. That's why peacekeeping is so hard - there isn't an easy way to do things.

doesnt "UN" really MEAN "wimp"?

Peacekeeping troops may work as long as no American troops are part of it?

Yeah cause you know , American troops have such a bad record of peacekeeping in places like Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia.

With out US troop involvement in a MACV sense at the very least , nothing will be accomplished.

Let's nip this in the bud, because it's a misinformed conjecture.

There is zero talk of bombing anything. What we are dealing with are armed militias attacking refugee camps on horses and camels, with occasional air support in the form of Antonov bombers, helicopter gunships, and MiGs.

What's to bomb?

It may sound hard to believe that this degree of destruction could be caused by such low tech means, but you're talking about the Sahel, one of the most inhospitable places on earth. Pushing families into the desert is equivalent to a death sentence.

What most aid agencies are requesting is nothing more than security around the perimeter of their refugee camps.

Any modern military could provide that: Australia, France (yes, France -- they have bases in Chad and Djibouti), and even combined
African forces provided by the relatively new African Union, assuming they can come up with the funding.

This is a political problem.

An unbelievable number of lives are at stake in this crisis (far more than in Iraq) -- before you start criticizing possible solutions, make sure that the solution you're criticizing is even on the table.

IMHO, this topic is getting way, way too little attention, even on SG.

It may well turn out to be the biggest catastrophe of our generation.

As long as no American Troops are involved??? Most of the UN forces are tired of facing fire from both sides?? Most of the UN forces ARE American. We have the largest number of soldiers involved in UN opporations than any other Country by far. We spend more money on the UN than any other nation. And no, it isn't better to whimp out while thousands of the very same innocents whos lives are rough enough are slaughtered. No, we can't turn a blind eye to this like we did in Rawanda.