This has so many markings of Rwanda

  • News
  • Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date
  • #1
member 5645
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

However, rather than condemning Sudan, it expresses solidarity with the country in overcoming the presesnt situation. It was voted against by the US.

"Ten years from today the only thing that will be remembered about the 60th Commission on Human Rights is whether we stand up on the ethnic cleansing going on in Sudan," US delegation head Richard Williamson told AFP news agency.


The UN says more than 10,000 people have been killed and over one million displaced over the past year as a result of conflict in Darfur.
The UN is expressing solidarity with the country, whose militia groups are killing thousands, and no one wants to outright say "This is wrong!".
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Njorl
Science Advisor
258
10
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
 
  • #3
member 5645
Njorl said:
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
THis is a horrible shame!

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

The government began mobilising a horse or camel-mounted Arab militia - the Janjaweed - to tackle the insurrection.

Now numbering several thousand, this proxy force often carries out attacks on villages and towns taken by rebels shortly after bombings by government aircraft.

Human rights groups have accused the militia of numerous abuses - killing, looting and rape - of the non-Arab residents of Darfur.

The government says it has control of the region, but rebels deny this.
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.
 
  • #4
kat
26
0
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
Oil has been discovered right across southern Sudan - like the war itself it is something the local population has no particular need for or interest in. But as always they are the ones who are paying the price.

Government forces have launched a scorched earth policy to drive civilians, and the rebels who live among them, out of the oil fields. That is where the helicopter gunships have come in handy.

Needless to say, international companies have been queuing up for a slice of the action - that includes British companies like Rolls Royce, which has provided engines to push the oil along the pipelines.
and this:http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/sudan/sudan.php [Broken]

A new factor worsens the threat of genocide: oil. In late 1999, the Sudanese government began earning hundreds of millions of dollars from oil exports, made possible in part by Western oil companies like Talisman Energy. This hard currency gives the government both greater means and greater motive to accelerate its assault on disfavored groups.

Greater means, because the oil revenues finance the purchase of new weapons. As one Sudanese cabinet minister said, "What prevents us from fighting while we possess the oil that supports us in this battle even if it lasts for a century?"

Greater motive, because the government can tap the country's estimated reserves of some 8 billion barrels only if it cleanses ethnic groups like the Dinka and Nuer from the land under which it sits.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #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".
 
  • #6
member 5645
hughes johnson said:
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".

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!
 
  • #7
5
0
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:
 
  • #8
1,036
1
Don't worry. People will soon find a way to blame it on the US anyway.
 
  • #9
kat
26
0
studentx said:
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:

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

The Bush administration has an interest in making sure that Sudan is not a refuge for al-Qaeda or similar organisations; after all, Osama bin Laden lived in Khartoum in the early 1990s when militant Islamists were dominant in northern Sudan.

Another big reason for American interest is Sudan's recently developed oil wealth - the subject of the agreement.

The Bush administration is always looking for new sources of supply and has declared African oil to be a strategic national interest.

Much of Sudan's oil lies in the south and existing fields straddle the north-south divide, so full exploitation by western companies means an end to the war and a stable government
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.
 
  • #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:
  • #11
Zero
Keep it clean, folks.
 
  • #12
kat
26
0
Dissident Dan said:
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.
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.
 
  • #13
What and whose behavior in Iraq do you find remniscent of what's (or what appears to be) going on in Sudan?
 
  • #14
118
0
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......
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
19,951
6,441
Dissident Dan said:
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.
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.
 

Related Threads on This has so many markings of Rwanda

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
49
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Top