NEWS: Powell Accuses Sudan of Genocide

POLITICS: Powell Accuses Sudan of Genocide

The Darfur region in Sudan has been the scene of ethnically-motivated mass slaughter. Colin Powell finally called these killings what they are: genocide. The Sudanese government denies it, of course.

For the past couple of months politicians have been careful not to use the word genocide because that word would force the UN to intervene.

It's good to see the Bush Administration use the UN instead of going over it's head. Powell plans to meet with the UN and study a US draft resolution.

This is another example of too little too late. The people of the Sudan and their plight has been ongoing for years. Senator McCain has written several letters to the President requesting a move toward immediate military intervention.

The UN has had numerous opportunities to call the cleansing in the Sudan a genocide. The reason they have not is quite simple - resistance from the Arab community. (The Sudanese government served a high post of the Human Rights council) Powell calling this a genocide is seen as an insult to the majority of Arab UN representatives.

So as more times passes and the options are weighed, more families will be bombed by a governent using MIGs against sticks. I fail to see any nobel quality in allowing the UN to hedge on whether or not the word "genocide" will be used.

Even in his wording Powell took a shot at the Arab members of the international community. This is another case of too little too late, as the word tip toes around the issue of an Islamic movement to irradicate Christianity from the African continent by any means necessary.

Have we learned so little from Rowanda that we are willing to simply follow the same path - the path that the international community and Mr. Clinton apologized for taking. Clinton was clear that he felt Rowanda was one of his biggest failures and if we allow the slaughter to continue in the hopes of earning the approval of insignificant countries then it will be Bush who apologizes next.

If we fon't use our might to stop situations like this, then I fail to see why we use it at all. While I appreciate Powell finally saying something, it's a few years too late.

Unfortunately, Powell currently carries little weight in the Bush regime - & he's likely leaving if there's a second term. "Using the term 'genocide'" is about damn time, but I don't see Powell able to do much about it in the little time & little influence he has left in the Bush administration.

The human rights council in the UN is a joke. They should have some sort of rules about who can be on it... like, no countries who blatantly abuse human rights would be a good start.

This is all really sad. I think Colin Powell knew this to be true all along--you'd have to be an idiot to not know this--but politics and the hope for something better might have stifled his voice. Now, when he's virtually a lame duck in the Bush adminisitration, he's finally free enough to say what he thinks.

Now that's sad. But what's tragic is the fact that the U.N. will probably do not much of anything as it usually does... Or in this case doesn't...

remember the armenian genocide at the hands of the turks?


no?


ohhh riiight, thats cuz the turks and the u.s. to this day wont acknowledge the fact that it ever happened



less somethin new happened i missed

The UN is a farce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed

and the sick thing is Pres. Bush calls himself a christian. It's clear he's just a politician, and one with his own agendas at that. All this suffering is happening in Sudan, and what does he do? Takes out Saddam, at the expense of 1000 american lives and the biggest deficit in history.

If Mr Powel ran for president, The man would be our first black president.

And still... someone would question this great mans military record. lol

Oh yeah.. Sudan.. No shit. Goind down Sudan! Down Down Down, Sudan going Down. (imagine Jim carrey saying the way he did in Cable Guy)

CIao

I'm glad he used the word "genocide". Now Coffi Anin (i know it's spelled wrong, but most of ya'll probably know that of whom I speak) can't pussy foot around this as he did Rwanda - which he later 'regretted'.

I will never fucking understand how politics and personal political ambition can be more important to a politician then the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands or millions, of innocent men, women, and children. Such complacency literally makes me sick to my stomach.

I hate the Bush Administration as a vegan an animal research scientist, but I applaude Colin Powell for this. The sad thing is that you know Bush had nothing to do about this (as you would suspect with an administration such as, say, Reagan's) because Powell is not Bush's puppet; Bush is Powells. No matter, at least someone is finally pulling the right strings for the right things.

This is a definite move in the right direction.

I may not have all of the facts but I would very much like to say this.

I don't care what the situation is: wholesale slaughter should be stopped hard, stopped dead, and stopped fast. My contention is why does it seem to me that the United States has to be on the forefront of anything larger or more intense than a riot at a weenie roast? Who elected us to be the ones responsible the lion's share of the time? Why don't any of the 'morally superior' nations do more than whine and bray for the cameras?

America is denounced as a warmongering state on many, many occasions but when someone needs money, economic, industrial or military support they come screaming to us.

Sorry, off topic. Venting some pent-up frustration at the state of the world. This time, an American brings an important item to the UN. For politics? Some sort of backroom favor? Or maybe, just maybe for a real moral stand. I hope that the last is the case for once and I hope the UN doesn't blow it off just because it's an American bringing it to the table.

[Edited on Sep 09, 2004 11:57PM]

A few of the misconceptions I've seen in these comments:

* China, Pakistan, and Russia are the three main voices preventing the UN from imposing sanctions on the leaders of Sudan and their oiil connections. Surprise surprise, both Russia and China have significant oil contracts with Sudan. None of these is an Arab country.

* The victims in Darfur are Muslim, not Christian. It has nothing to do with eradicating Christianity. In fact, it's hard to argue that religion has anything to do with this conflict at all -- the Janjaweed leave burning mosques and Korans in their wake, despite being "Muslims" themselves. What has happened is that desertification of northern Darfur has exacerbated the tensions between ethnic groups in Darfur, and the government in Khartoum has used this tension to attempt to solidify its political base there. By wiping out Blacks.

* No one has ever seriously considered sending US troops to Sudan. That has been a given since Powell's trip in July. What is at issue now is whether to send an African Union force significant to stop the Janjaweed. We're not being asked to "police" the Sudan. We're trying to apply political pressure to the govenment, in an attempt to scare them into realizing that their neighboring countries, members of the African Union, will not stand idly by and let them slaughter their own people.

Whether Bush himself is taking this issue seriously, I don't know. I kind of doubt it. He's gotten himself into enough trouble, I'd wager.

<i>China, Pakistan, and Russia are the three main voices preventing the UN from imposing sanctions on the leaders of Sudan and their oiil connections.</i>

China has no more voice than Algeria. Russia has been very clear in it's statements that they <b>would not</b> stand in the way of sanctions. They are against them but Putin has been very up front in saying that if they were popularly accepted by the UN that they would not stand in the way. The UN, however, has continued and will always continue to coddle the Arab league.

<i>he victims in Darfur are Muslim, not Christian. he victims in Darfur are Muslim, not Christian. </i>

This is a common misconception. That these people are being killed solely because they are black. They are, in fact, viewed as being weak muslims. Muslims that were not supportive of governent policies such as making converting to Christianity a <i>capital offense</i>. The muslims of Darfur are seen as a speed bump in the conversion of the African continent to the values of militant Islam. There are several truly fascinating books on this dynamic.

<i>No one has ever seriously considered sending US troops to Sudan. </i>

Several congressman and Sentators including McCain have requested it. The Sudanese people have been asking to be policed for a decade. As Minute Bol stated to the congress of this country "The Sudanese people pray for God or George Bush to save them"

As far a Powell goes, he is not the first to openly call this a genocide, congress voted on it already. Is Bush serious about it? He did state that they would place sanctions against oil from the Sudan with or without UN permission. It's a tough situation. If the US choses not to let the dying continue then we will "anger" the ever so important "international community" again by not waiting for everyone to agree and either way we will anger the arab community by attacking another muslim government.

Either way he goes, he steps in shit. Sometimes, I think people forget how much being president can just plain suck.

No shot. Powel is over rated and a novelty. He is not accepted in political circles as more than a gimmick and a presidential campaign would fail miserably. As far as his service goes, hell they managed to turn McCain spending years in a POW box against him.

Hmm. Note to self. Read HTML tag list.

brainslesswonder,

I'm pretty certain that China, as a member of the Security Council, pulls a lot of weight in the UN whether the Council's vote is needed or not. Politics, etc.

No, no one in the US government has been serious about sending any serious amount of US troops since the Somalia fiasco. During Rwanda, the idea was that the US media and the public at large wouldn't handle large numbers of casualties in fierce fights against brutal, "unnappreciative" enemies. Nowadays, despite what you think of Sen. McCain's letters, there is no way we could deploy anyone. Period. It looks nice when a politician brings out points like this, but everyone should know when someone in their position really is working for something and when they are simply making the statement. John McCain may have made the statement for no reason other than that someone needed to make it, so as to maintain appearances (concern, desire to do something, send a message to other states, etc.). I can assure you that he didn't not notice that we are rather low on available troops right now.

As for the UN, part of the problem is that (and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) the Human Rights Council is separated in specific geographical zones, which I believe don't answer to anyone really. So, it's not likely that Sudan and similar states would just rat on themselves, you know? It's frustrating, but it's one of the many catch-22s that were put in place to get people to sign on to, and stay with, the UN to begin with--most nations being very wary of giving up any amount of sovereignty or self-rule.

Believe me, I wish more could be done for nations like Sudan. It's going to take a whole lot more than the US, though, and it needs to happen in many more places in Africa than just the Sudan. Truthfully, I don't believe that Africa will really be able to take her proper place in our world until the people and governments of America and (especially) Europe realize that we are about the only nations that can--and, truly, should (given recent history)--effect a change for the better there.

That's just my opinion, though.

That's why I'm slightly optimistic about what seems to be gathering steam behind the African Union.

I think it would be significant for wars in Africa to involve more than countries that share a border. It changes the public perception of the situation there: Nigeria is a long way from the Sudan, for instance.

For them to send troops raises the international profile of the conflict.

While it would be nice not to be in a situation where, say, the US army could fly in and surround the perimeter of the refugee camps, we're in no such situation today. And we won't be, probably, ever.

If a serious military solution is going to take place to the situation in Darfur (and hopefully, in the future, the DRC, Somalia, etc etc etc etc), it's going to have to come from inside the continent.

Astonishingly enough, to me, given my opinion of the Bush administration, I think they're doing just about the right thing in this situation: apply as much political pressure as possible, and support Africa-internal approaches.

This sounds interesting, could you list some titles?

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but I have to disagree. This is less about raising international profiles and doing the right thing and more about countries like Nigeria (which is *rife* with religion-based human rights abuses) and Rwanda (no comment) wanting to get "good guy" kudos from the UN.

I can't think of one nation within Africa right now that has both the manpower and the budget to send the number of troops needed to keep the peace in the Darfur reason. Even if they wanted to do it anyways, none of the African Union nations have the muscle to get Sudan to accept their presence en masse.

That's part of the solution, but I guarantee you that if this is the extent of the moxy non-African states will present... Africa will be in trouble for many years more. Sudan's government knows that however they might offend our sensibilities, they will likely always be able to find someone to export oil to in order to take care of the people that matter within their borders. Most of the rest of the dipshits ruling that continent couldn't really be concerned with things like a stable economy, so it's kind of hard to reach them, ya dig?

The one in
1915? More to the point are more recent genocides - in Rwanda in 1994, for example.

Use brackets " [ ] " instead of "< >".

Personally I think any nation that doesn't hold elections should be booted from the UN.

How is further punishing the citizenry of a totalitarian state for the sins of their leaders going to make things better?

How would that punish the citizenry?

The UN could still make rulings (or, as is usual, make passive sort of "please do what we say but we won't make you" rulings) for these nations, without the interference of a couple of dictators who don't respresent their people whatsoever.

Honestly, why should a handful of people who ripped control of a nation by force have a say in WORLD politics? They shouldn't even have a say in their own nation's politics, but we give them power in the global sphere?

That is pretty ridiculous when you think about it.