Bush Says U.N. Should Take Over in Darfur

[tuvor]

President Bush called on Monday for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping in the Darfur region of Sudan and promised to expedite food aid. He welcomed a proposed peace accord as "the beginnings of hope" for Darfur's poverty-stricken population.

Bush said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would go to the United Nations on Tuesday to press for a new U.N. resolution increasing peacekeepers.

"Darfur has a chance to begin anew," Bush said.

He also urged Congress to act on a request for $225 million in emergency food aid for Darfur, and said he was ordering the emergency purchase of 40,000 metric tons of food and was dispatching five ships to carry it to the region.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/05/08/ap2729825.html

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Well, if we weren't on an international adventure, we might be sending

our own troops to help end the genocide.

But hey. Darfur doesn't have iol under their ground. Now that, my friends, make all the difference right there.

[durrrty libby]

2. Could he be any more obvious? n/t

[mom cat]

8. I thought that there was oil in the Sudan. Is it just not in Darfur? Does

anyone here have an understanding of the role of oil in the conflict/genocide?

[MGKrebs]

3. What does that mean?

It's not like the UN is some independent country or entity. it is made up of it's members. Saying that the UN should take over is nearly equivelant to saying the US should take over, the main difference being that the UN wouyld require world sanction to do so. But in any case, it would be guys from the US and/or other countries who would have to go, not some mythical "UN troop".

This drives me crazy. Some people act like the UN is some supernatural power that is supposed to be able to control behavior through force.

[Igel]

7. The US has been pushing the UN to

interfere in Sudan since '04. The UN's ruled it's not genocide, and has no business interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. The best it did was say, "We bless Sudan's wisdom and overall niceness for allowing AU troops with US/EU funding to monitor the genoci... disturbance." Resolutions get watered down to be nearly meaningless.

China's oil dealings will not be denied. Neither will other countries'.

A great UN role has been discussed. Often. And ruled out, just as often, since the UN has not been invited in, and wouldn't want to be involved in the conflict.

This is unlike Iraq; at least with Iraq there was a country that allowed a troop build up and overflights. Not so with Sudan.

With a peace deal of some sorts, perhaps Sudan will allow UN peacekeepers in, not the AU folk. And if there's more or less peace, maybe the UN will have no problem with it.

[Bacchus39]

11. the UN is disingenous on this one

if the UN declared this a genocide, they are compelled to act. thus, if there is no such declaration they need not do anything.

[MGKrebs]

12. That's just it! There is no "UN" making those decisions

outside of the membership. IF THE MEMBER COUNTRIES wanted to declare it genocide, they could.

Let's face it, "the UN" is no good at entering into an armed conflict and trying to win it. That is just not what they do. Once some sort of semblance of stability has been achieved, they (we) can go in and try to maintain it. "The UN" is not, and I hope never will be, some super-national force that can impose it's will on any country anywhere at any time. We do not want that. The whole idea is to do things by consent. If we don't have consensus, the UN has little or no role to play. It is unfair and misguided to ask it to do more than that.

[Bacchus39]

13. I pretty much agree but the idea of a nation like Rwanda

having to consent to UN intervention while genocide is occurring seems a little preposterous.

is there no agreement among UN member nations that if genocide is occurring on their soil that the UN has authority to act?????? If not, there certainly should be.

having to ask the government, Sudan, for permission to have UN troops as peace keepers when the Sudan government is the party responsible for the genocide is absolutely insane.

[MGKrebs]

14. There are certainly circumstances when the other UN

members can override one country's objection- unless that country is on the Security Council. But even if the UN members did that, who would go? It would be (presumably) soldiers from the member countries who are assigned to the task. It is better if countries in the region participate in the action, but if they can't or won't, other countries are going to be less willing to intervene.

Not only that, there are some situations in which intervention would have little chance of success at a given moment, which will also keep member nations from making a committment.

It is inspiring in a way that so many people want the UN to be able to do so much. But when we are tempted to fault the UN for not being able to fulfill our dreams, perhaps we can also observe that making dreams into reality is a difficult thing to do.

[Bacchus39]

16. yes, I concur. the structure of the UN simply does not allow it

to function expeditiously and those that invoke the UN at every crisis are misleading.

[Igel]

18. And that's precisely the problem.

If you look at Sudan, at least one security counsel country has its self-interest at stake because of the oil and economic investment.

Given the membership of the UN security counsel, pretty much for any instance of genocide or invasion somebody will have some reason to not call it genocide or unjust and will balk at the idea of intervention. Whether it's oil contracts or commitments to sign contracts, whether it's a supply of raw materials or financial instruments at stake, or simply geopolitical aspirations.

If the UN as an organization can't bring itself to act in a positive way to stop genocide, it lacks any moral authority to speak out on that matter, and to a large extent on lesser matters.

[MGKrebs]

19. It may be "a problem", but why is it a UN problem?

Why isn't it an OPEC problem? Or a Red Crescent problem? Or an African Union problem?


The UN can speak- and act- with moral authority on many issues; health care, poverty, environmental protection, and election protection are some of them. Intervening in large scale conflict is just not very often within the UN's capabilities. I don't believe the organization is even designed to do that. If you just try to imagine what it would take to have an organization that would have that kind of capability, I hope that you would see that that would be a very dangerous and scary organization to have.

The UN is better suited to try to PREVENT wide scale violence before it occurs, and obviously, the organization is not always successful at this. But mostly, the UN as an organization operates in areas where consensus can be achieved. Violent conflict, once it breaks out, by it's very definition is unlikely to be addressed through consensus, especially when it probably involves removal of a government. I think it is unfair and unrealistic (and maybe even imprudent) for us to expect the UN to be able to do that.

[Igel]

17. Precisely. n/t

[Bacchus39]

9. that is correct. member nations will have to commit troops

time for nations of the world to step up.

[Mojorabbit]

4. I'm glad he is sending some food.

Those people need all the help we can give them.

[JPZenger]

5. US Aid to Darfur Costs Less than 1 of Bush's Helicopters

The total US aid to Darfur this year will be less than the average cost of each of the 23 armored helicopters that is being purchased for Bush and Cheney. The total cost of the 23 "mobile oval offices" is $6.1 billion.

[orwell]

6. They'll need them...

...when his fellow Cons march up the hill with torches blazing at pitchforks at the ready...

[Javaman]

10. He's* soooo concerned. There's oil in Sudan, and the north controls it...

Moron* is not acting all humanitarian to help the UN or the poor people of Darfur, he wants a controlling stake in the lives of these people so he can have a finger in their oil.

there was a great article written by National Geographic last year about the Sudan.

the reality is this. the north is controlled by the oil rich Muslims, the south is all non- muslims who want to break away who also sit on a large oil reserve, but don't have the money or tech to exploit it. So the north has been on a mission to get rid of those people. In steps in the UN for humanitarian reasons, and in steps in moron* for purely greedy reasons.

The people there will be "saved" for the moment, but once the oil nationals come in and start ripping up their land for oil, I can assure you those same people that were saved from genocide will be forced into slave labor.

[Gregorian]

15. I have a fiery hatred for Bush.

What a turd.

Edit- Vermin!

Edit2- Sorry. I should taper my emotions a bit. It's kind of stupid to be angry. Especially at something as pathetic as the human waste that Bush is. But how else should one feel when their taxes which could be helping starving children are instead going to help starve children and kill them? Like in Iraq. Booo!