Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

This has so many markings of Rwanda

  1. Apr 23, 2004 #1
    This has so many markings of Rwanda....

    Why is the USA the only ones condemning government sactioned (either passively allowing or possibly direct funding) genocide? Rwanda was a screw up because of all the politics. Words on all sides like "genocide like events" were used to avoid the need to intervene right away. Why make the same mistake???

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3652521.stm

    The UN is expressing solidarity with the country, whose militia groups are killing thousands, and no one wants to outright say "This is wrong!".
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 23, 2004 #2

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Human Rights Watch is doing a very good job raising awareness of the atrocities, but that is about all they can do. Amnesty International is not giving it very much coverage.

    The violent oppression has been simmering in the Sudan for a very long time. This may lead people to believe that it will continue at its current pace. I think recent actions are reason to doubt this though.

    I think that the Sub-Saharan African nations are not unified enough to get the attention of the rest of the world. The politics of the UN works in blocs. Since the enemies of Sub-Saharan nations are usually other Sub-Saharan nations, they have no effective bloc. Nobody wants to annoy an Arab nation for the benefit of the Black Sudanese.

    Njorl
     
  4. Apr 23, 2004 #3
    THis is a horrible shame!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm

    The government says it's in control, thus we must take that to mean the killings are sanctioned by them. This is time to AT LEAST start by condemning on record this genocide, but once again the UN plays politics instead of acting.
     
  5. Apr 23, 2004 #4

    kat

    User Avatar

    How much of this is because of oil? I've been reading for years that the oil can't be removed unless the people who live on the land are removed.

    For instance the following from BBC:
    Oil and Sudan's Civil war
    and this:Genocide in Sudan


    Last 10 articles on oil in Sudan from Sudan Times



    And, even though Njorl doesn't like it..I'm looking for confirmation, explanation or refutation. I haven't the time to delve into this as I'd like to.
     
  6. Apr 23, 2004 #5
    As long as the people in the industrialized world are paralyzed by fear, nothing will be done. "World peace" is the most important thing. It may appear to you that these people are being slaughtered by the thousands, but this is not the case at all, they are actually just enjoying the benefits of "world peace".
     
  7. Apr 24, 2004 #6

    I managed to get more OFFTOPIC responses in a thread about Kerry or Bush, than I do in a thread about genocide! You are absolutely right I fear. Inaction, Inaction, Inaction. Apparently the USA is completely evil, because we aren't playing the game of silent politics - blame everyone and no one for your failures!
     
  8. Apr 24, 2004 #7
    Theres oil, a rogue regime and arabs. Now all we need is a false WMD claim and the crowds will moan in horror when the first American troops enter Sudan :biggrin:
     
  9. Apr 24, 2004 #8
    Don't worry. People will soon find a way to blame it on the US anyway.
     
  10. Apr 24, 2004 #9

    kat

    User Avatar


    Yes, and the BBC has already started the warm-up.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3376265.stm

    Of course I don't see any mention of the companies that are already there. Any guesses as to who has an interest in prolonging this disaster so that the Oil fields are cleared for them? (or am I wearing a tinfoil hat today...hmm?)


    BTW, how many genocides does this make under Laureate Kofi Annan's watch? I think I see the U.N.'s game plan. Let him serve another term or two and the can take credit for solving the population problems of most of the third world.
     
  11. Apr 25, 2004 #10
    From what I've read, I think that sending troops in the Sudan would have been a better use for our troops than sending them into Iraq. Situations such as this and the recent one in Liberia are the perfect example of where it is a good idea for nations such as the USA to police the world. In the Iraq situation, there were dubious justifications for going to war and a rather lofty goal. In the Africa situations, we have a situation where the goal is just to stop civil war where the fighters can offer virtually no resistence to US or European forces.

    The UN Human Rights commission appears pretty useless, probably because it has 53 countries, many of which are third-world countries.

    Kat, the article that you just mentioned did give the USA due credit for its involvement in the peace process, although it (probably unwarrantedly) said that oil concerns may be part of the reason.

    edit: As far as that last article goes, I think that it would presuming too much to say that the USA's interest definitely has a strong oil component, but it would not be unreasonabe to mention it as a possibility. The way that it's worded is not good.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  12. Apr 25, 2004 #11
    Keep it clean, folks.
     
  13. Apr 26, 2004 #12

    kat

    User Avatar

    I don' t think it's at all that simple Dan. The issue is not just a civil war. The areas that are being cleared (through genocide) are areas where there is oil, the government of sudan is complicent in this and there has been some evidence that the Oil companies are as well.
    The United States has laws that prevent our Oil companies from operating in this situation. I don't believe they can enter that market until the situation is settled.
    The Oil companies there now benefit from the clearing of the indigenious populaiton, it's not in their interest for it to be stopped. The oil companies there as of 2001 were: Talisman Energy of Canada , Petronas, the state-owned oil company of Malaysia, China National Petroleum Carnation (CNPC) the state-owned oil giant of the People's Republic of China. TotalFinaElf of France/Belgium, OMV of Austria, Agip of Italy, Royal Dutch Shell owns a refinery in Port Sudan, BP may have financed a good part of the CNPC.
    Maybe I'm wrong, but the behavior with Iraq makes me think that it's very much the same game w/ many of the same players. It's just sickening. The whole thing.
     
  14. Apr 27, 2004 #13
    What and whose behavior in Iraq do you find remniscent of what's (or what appears to be) going on in Sudan?
     
  15. Apr 27, 2004 #14
    sudan has not enough oil.....yugoslavia had not enough oil.....you need SOMETHING, to be important, so west can get something from you, otherwise, genocide penocide benocide......
     
  16. Apr 28, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If nothing else, putting out the small fires is easier and less controvertial (the Somalia debacle notwithstanding) than putting out the big ones. We should be doing more of that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: This has so many markings of Rwanda
  1. Mark your calendars (Replies: 154)

Loading...