Sudan and the United Nations

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:15 am

September 25, 2004
Another Triumph for the U.N.
By DAVID BROOKS

And so we went the multilateral route.

Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.

And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.

Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.

We did everything basically right. The president was involved, the secretary of state was bold and clearheaded, the U.N. ambassador was eloquent, and the Congress was united. And, following the strictures of international law, we had the debate that, of course, is going to be the top priority while planes are bombing villages.

We had a discussion over whether the extermination of human beings in this instance is sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of genocide. For if it is, then the "competent organs of the United Nations" may be called in to take appropriate action, and you know how fearsome the competent organs may be when they may indeed be called.

The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.

For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.

But the multilateral process moved along in its dignified way. The U.N. general secretary was making preparations to set up a commission. Preliminary U.N. resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told they should stop - often in frosty tones. The world community - well skilled in the art of expressing disapproval, having expressed fusillades of disapproval over Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Iraq, etc. - expressed its disapproval.

And, meanwhile, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in Darfur.

There was even some talk of sending U.S. troops to stop the violence, which, of course, would have been a brutal act of oil-greedy unilateralist empire-building, and would have been protested by a million lovers of peace in the streets. Instead, the U.S. proposed a resolution threatening sanctions on Sudan, which began another round of communiqué-issuing.

The Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions would not be in the interests of humanity. The Chinese, whose oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto. And so began the great watering-down. Finally, a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to "consider" sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon.

The Security Council debate had all the decorous dullness you'd expect. The Algerian delegate had "profound concern." The Russian delegate pronounced the situation "complex." The Sudanese government was praised because the massacres are proceeding more slowly. The air was filled with nuanced obfuscations, technocratic jargon and the amoral blandness of multilateral deliberation.

The resolution passed, and it was a good day for alliance-nurturing and burden-sharing - for the burden of doing nothing was shared equally by all. And we are by now used to the pattern. Every time there is an ongoing atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages: (1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4) pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let this happen again.

The "never again" always comes. But still, we have all agreed, this sad cycle is better than having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go in "unilaterally" and do something. That would lack legitimacy! Strain alliances! Menace international law! Threaten the multilateral ideal!

It's a pity about the poor dead people in Darfur. Their numbers are still rising, at 6,000 to 10,000 a month.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Magikal · Post by **Magikal** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:18 am

What good news! I'm so glad we're not being mean ol' imperialists and handling this like we did Iraq, where Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on his own people!

Oh, wait, I forgot, he never had any (even tho we know he did, because he used them). Or he shipped them out to the Saudis before we got there (as our satellite photos showed trucks going that way). So Bush lied, and Saddam was not on the side of the terrorists (even tho he publicly stated he was).

Yes, what's happening now in the Sudan is much preferable to how we handled Iraq. No blood for oil! (all 3% of it that we get from Iraq)

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:30 pm

*sigh*

When are people going to learn ... the UN is NOT a government (when was the last time you or anyone else on the planet elected anyone there?). They are a group of diplomats mostly trying to bring home some bacon (most of the bacon provided by US taxpayers) and line their own pockets a little at the same time.

The UN is basically toothless. Mostly they are afraid to upset the status quo lest someone's gravy train be derailed. They don't REALLY care if anyone decides to wack a good percentage of their population. I have never seen the UN take action on its own. What has to happen is for public opinion in a place like the US to get big enough for a country like the US to lobby the UN to do something and frame it in a way that makes them look stupid if they don't.

The UN is staffed with diplomats, not legislators or executives. Their answer to every single problem is though talking. That works FINE when BOTH sides actually want to resolve something and are prepared to compromise, but that is the ONLY time it works. Otherwise, diplomacy is an effective stalling technique used to reach one's goals by other means while holding off any interference while "talks" are taking place. Diplomacy without something to back it up is useless, it is simply hot air. There needs to be a ... we will resolve this by next Tuesday or you are going to get the shit beat out of you ... aspect to it or there is no incentive NOT to keep tallking forever.

THAT is the part that people are missing with Iraq. Resolution 1441 passed UNANAMOUSLY that promised unnamed "serious consequences" if Iraq kept fucking with the inspectors.

Ohhh! SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES! We will send Bob Barker to Baghdad!
Truth or Consequences! What a laughingstock the UN is.

France: Please don't invade Iraq. We have sold a shitload of weapons there and they owe us a boatload of money and if that govt goes down, we are out a ton-o-francs.

Germany: We are shutting down our nuke plants and so will pretty much be reliant on French nuke power for our energy needs ... so .... what France said!

UN Diplomats: The oil for food program is allowing us to line our pockets with cash. We must appear to be doing something without ACTUALLY doing anything that might jeopardize those kickbacks!

Sudan is a different story. I don't think UN diplomats are making any money off them. So yeah, it stands to reason that they might actually agree to DO something there. Sudan just needs to learn how to play the game if it wants to stall for more time.

UN Diplomats are not afraid to do nothing ... they don't have to worry about answering to anyone except the person that appointed them. Our diplomat can not be thrown out of office by the people of this country and neither can anyone elses. It isnt a government ... its a fucking racket! Since when has anyone allowed what is in effect a diplomatic mission dictate policy? Any time that has ever happened in the past, it has failed miserably. Has the UN actually SUCCEEDED anywhere besides Normandy and Inchon? The UN was actually born as a diplomatic mission with some serious military force backing it up (UK, US, USSR, and token France). It has turned into a squabbling coffee klatch.

Lysergic · Post by **Lysergic** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:03 am

Hey geekster whats new? I swear all this shit is hall of mirrors for narcissicsts.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:01 am

Well, cynics at least. But I for one do tend to throw out a lot of "experimental opinions" ... consider it art. Possibly bad art.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:15 am

Sudan is not about "cynics" nor about "a hall of mirrors for narcissists". It's not even about what the U.N can or cannot do or say.

It's always been all about the land and the oil.

No one is going to stop what is going on in Sudan.
Since apartheid has been "removed" and imperial/colonialists cant take advantage of/steal the resources the old fashioned way using the o'l "them people over there that cant control their life’s let alone some land of oil and diamonds, gold and other resources,. Let them kill each otha off."

It's the way the world is.

There is still to be a pipe line from Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan

As indicated in this article: http://www.rememberjohn.com/maps.html

and just so one can get a better picture of what the end result is going to be when everyone (oilers and the such ) get their way.

This is what the united states paid the Taliban for. To run the oil line through Afghanistan only the Taliban didn’t go for it. Sure there are some bad things about the Taliban and Bin laden, but if anyone has paid attention to what Bin Laden has been saying, He has been saying that "he wants Americans off Arabian soil". There is a reason other than just politics/religion and the dislike of infidels.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 17, 2003
Contact: Press Office
(202) 646-5172
MEDIA ADVISORY

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS

Commerce & State Department Reports to Task Force Detail Oilfield & Gas Projects, Contracts & Exploration

Saudi Arabian & UAE Oil Facilities Profiled As Well

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.

The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

Judicial Watch has been seeking these documents under FOIA since April 19, 2001. Judicial Watch was forced to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002.

The documents were produced in response to Judicial Watch’s on-going efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in government on behalf of the American people. Judicial Watch aggressively pursues those goals by making FOIA requests and seeking access to public information concerning government operations. When the government fails to abide by these “sunshine laws” Judicial Watch files lawsuits in order to obtain the requested information and to hold responsible government officials accountable.

“These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Click here for: MAPS AND CHARTS OF OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE

This articale was published here.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:37 am

so, that means you are willing to do nothing but whine DVD?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:39 am

Hey!

You did'nt here me do any whining.

I already said, "that's the way of the world" Even though there is a band that plays it better in a song.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:40 am

hear:

Just for Joel.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:31 am

Simply Joel wrote:so, that means you are willing to do nothing but whine DVD?

Just to further clarify; No matter what happens with America's elections this year, Iran and Syria will be invaded. The excuse, which is already in play, which will be used, is "because of the nuclear threat."

As originally stated by "The new American Century" America, originally, was going to open "a dialog with Iran" to discuss oil issues but as one can see if you go to "The new America century" site and scroll down to the bottom of the website this option has been removed.
(They weren’t even smart enough to remove the title.)
The plan to attack Iraq was planned in 92 and written about in 98 as is listed on the same site on the same page under "How to Attack Iraq" .

I believe I have saved the whole site from 92 until 2000 because I believed they would start deleting their plans if anything went wrong.

What is it that I am doing? Spreading the word same as always. Just as last year when plenty posted on this board no less, "The new American Century" had nothing to do with why America was going to war.
_______________________________________________________

As stated in their "statement of principles"

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

I. Lewis Libby

Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

_____________________________________________

I cannot figure why it is that Bush, Cheney and the lot ( including Senators and Congressmen.) cannot be sued for fraud, slander, treason, murder of fellow American citizens, War crimes and endangering American citizens on American soil.

I would like to see these guys sued and put in jail. (Yes suing these guys for what they have done and putting them in jail is not only humane but would be the first step to world peace.) The paper work and research would be rather much.

(That Rather thing was not a pun. I myself would plan on doing the research to see what would need to be done.)

From what I just posted I don’t see what the problem is in pointing out who said what and who planned the events of the world from 1992 to this day.

I mean come on. It really cant be that hard. Look who is on the rastar. DAN QUALE

Anyone on the same team as he cannot be all that bright.

Nope, I'm not whining. I'm trying to think of how to do what is necessary to promote what is wrong or just plain and simple not right with these people (democrat or Republican) and figure out how to get the ball going.

Maybe it’s my small contribution to society. Not much but maybe it'll be a little something. Better than complaining in a voting booth to which you know this year it will be flawed.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:05 am

I didnt read a lot of that stuff but I will mention something about the oil pipeline through afghanistan because I know a tiny bit about that. That has been "in the works" for decades. Afghanistan has basically NO natural resources to speak of. One resource they DO have is location. They border a fairly major oil producer ... Iran ... and a fairly major (and worlds fastest growing) oil consumer ... China. Lets see, country to my east is an insatiable thirst for a product the contry to my west has. Hmmm.

Same goes for Turkey and Pakistan ... gowing economies needing oil. A pipeline is one of the few ways they have to be able to make any money. Nobody EVER got rich working for a living. The way you make money is to move it from one pile to another and take a pinch for your trouble.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:13 pm

DVD Burner wrote: I cannot figure why it is that Bush, Cheney and the lot ( including Senators and Congressmen.) cannot be sued for fraud, slander, treason, murder of fellow American citizens, War crimes and endangering American citizens on American soil.

lack of credible evidence?

zzberlin · Post by **zzberlin** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:14 pm

Leave Sudan alone. They can take care of their own problems. It is imperialistic to suggest that we, the U.S., sweep in there and "fix" things.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:20 pm

Leave Sudan alone....

That's as naive as its simplistic.

Also the same mentality couched as it was that had most of the West wringing their hands while half a million Tutsi Ugandans were slaughtered by the Hutus.

Need I even mention Pol Pot?

zzberlin · Post by **zzberlin** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:27 pm

> Need I even mention Pol Pot?

Um, I don't know my history and bow to your knowledge. However, I read an interesting article not too long ago that suggested if the U.S. had stayed out of WWII, the german intellectuals would have stopped Hitler themselves. It just makes me think that we do not know what we are doing, that is, Americans, most of the time.

zzberlin · Post by **zzberlin** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:31 pm

My real question is: why do we take it upon ourselves to impose our values on other countries? Which is what we are doing anytime we get involved with foreign matters. We are so sure we are right, eh?

Magikal · Post by **Magikal** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:26 am

zzberlin wrote:> Need I even mention Pol Pot?

Um, I don't know my history and bow to your knowledge. However, I read an interesting article not too long ago that suggested if the U.S. had stayed out of WWII, the german intellectuals would have stopped Hitler themselves. It just makes me think that we do not know what we are doing, that is, Americans, most of the time.

Naw, I can't support that. By all indications, Hitler was bent on world conquest, in the best Alexandrian/Napolionic fashion. He was going to impose the tight-ass, Germanic notion of how things should be done (if you've ever known any Germans, you know what controlling bastards they can be) on everyone not German. What a swift pain in the arse!

The intellectuals stop Hitler? Please! His own officers attempted to surreptitiously assassinate him, AND FAILED, and they were all tracked down one-by-one. And these were men who LIVED for deceptive military campaigns! What chance would unsophisticated, nerdy intellectuals have against the CIA-like Storm Troopers and Gestapo? No, the US of A was already a "Player" by that point. There was no way in hades we were going to stay out of DubyaDubyaDeuce. Not any chance at all.

This was the "new world" emerging and flexing its muscles, shaking off the shell of the "old world", wanting to pick a fist-fight with anyone who dared to resist its growth. And the emergent US of A was the newest and strongest kid on the block, and the natural choice to pick a fight with. No, no chance. We were going to be the centerpoint of WWII.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:15 am

zz berlin wrote:

Um, I don't know my history and bow to your knowledge. However, I read an interesting article not too long ago that suggested if the U.S. had stayed out of WWII, the german intellectuals would have stopped Hitler themselves. It just makes me think that we do not know what we are doing, that is, Americans, most of the time.

Thanks, Magikal, for answering this. You did it much better than I could have and with less foam around the mouth. My frenzy has passed.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:54 am

zzberlin wrote:> Need I even mention Pol Pot?

Um, I don't know my history and bow to your knowledge. However, I read an interesting article not too long ago that suggested if the U.S. had stayed out of WWII, the german intellectuals would have stopped Hitler themselves. It just makes me think that we do not know what we are doing, that is, Americans, most of the time.

regarding the article you refer to... a URL perhaps, and we could read it too?

zzberlin wrote: My real question is: why do we take it upon ourselves to impose our values on other countries? Which is what we are doing anytime we get involved with foreign matters. We are so sure we are right, eh?

I have to raise the question... what if "our" values are shared values?
That is to say... isn't liberty of thought, speech, action (at least as currently demonstrated to some extent by most democracies) is more desirable than depostism, anarchy (violent), communism (inept central planning) and/or theocratic rule.

regarding international involvement... "that train has left the station and there is no turning back"

I don't believe it is a case of right or wrong... as much as "better or worse"

Do you the reader believe there is a better form of government, and if so, please identify it?

In my humble opinion, the USA might not be "right," yet we are sure better at addressing the needs and wants of our citizenry and the citizenry of the world...

and yeah, DVD... it is about oil to... about free trade... about doing business... participation, not spectation.

zzberlin · Post by **zzberlin** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:12 am

My most recent blog entry:

Stymied Research Efforts 09/28/04

I am going to have to start writing letters to the editor at the New Yorker.

A few weeks ago I read a review there by Adam Gopnik of several recently published war histories-- specifically WWI and WWII. One idea discussed was especially thought-provoking to me: that if the U.S. had not become involved in WWII when it did, the German intellectuals were likely to have stopped Hitler themselves. The discussion gave me, someone not normally interested in war history, a chance to reflect on U.S. imperialistic tendencies.

As is not uncommon for me, I lost that particular copy of the magazine. Now, arguing U.S. policies in the Sudan on another board, I want to cite this article. Yet twenty minutes of online research, including a google search and asking for help from one of the best academic librarians I know at Cal, I cannot find a cite to this article; I cannot even evidence that the article exists.

It frustrates me that the New Yorker does not put its old issues online. I think it reflects poorly on their understanding of the new information economy, where exposure and accessibility will determine spheres of influence, and not ownership. The New Yorker is missing out on a promotional opportunity here, because if I could access that text online, I would be blabbing about it all over the place, because I think the ideas in the article are very important. But no, I've hit a dead end, and the discussion will have to stop, because I cannot provide the citation I need to continue engaging in the debate.

Maybe I'll write Mr. Gopnik directly...

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:53 am

See if you can find out what Mr. Gopnik was smoking and spread some of it around...

Anthony Bondi · Post by **Anthony Bondi** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:02 am

It's hard to see any moral ambiguity in a photo that might show helicopter gunships strafing mud hut villages. But...but... Let's slightly alter the hypothetical picture. A couple moments before the appearance of the gunships; what's that we see in the Darfur village? A happy community get-together, a celebration, a performance of an age-old tribal ritual: "Let's hack off the clitoris of all the little girls in our village! Stupid people from outside our neighborhood probably won't understand what's up with us, but it's not their business. They're our little girls and if we want to hack off their sexual organs, it's our tradition. Oh no! Look in the sky; helicopter gunships come to kill us all. We're not going to be able to sexually mutilate our children today. And what's up with our little girls? Why are they cheering the gunships?"

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:15 am

Great post... If there was ever justification for genocide, this would be it: they mutilate their women, so lets wipe them all out.

Genocide needs no reason... only the will to do it, as has been proven for tens of thousands of years...

"The fault is not in our stars, Horatio, but in ourselves..."

Sudan and the United Nations

Sudan and the United Nations

hehe

Darfur tradition