UN Security Council may be set to act in Sudan...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Yup, the US was right up there with China and Russia blocking action that could save lives.

Tsk. Tsk.

We've been pushing for action in the UNSC on this issue for quite along time. Why hasn't anything been done? Which member could possibly be playing politics with lives and have an economic reason to stall real action on the issue? Oh yeah, it doesn't seem to be the US.

[Tingkai]

No, the UN security council wanted to do three things:
1) send more peacekeepers to the Sudan
2) Try war criminals in the ICC
3) Apply economic sanctions on Sudan.

The US, or more accurately the Bush administration, said it would veto any resolution that involved the ICC and that blocked the UN from taking action on the other items.

The Bush administration must shoulder blame for the inaction.

[Drake Tungsten]

Edit Ignore List

Tingkai

Thank you Krazy Horse, for opening a whole new world to me.

[Tingkai]

Please let him stick to his promise so that I don't have to read his inane responses.

The thing that strikes me as incredbily ironic is that the US behaviour at the UN just points out the hypocrisy and fallacy of the strange belief that the US is the policeman of the world. And the Americans here who criticise the UN for being ineffective when their own country is partially to blame, well it's just a sad commentary on people's blindness.

[DinoDoc]

We're not the one's with a financial incentive to slow things down Tingkai.

[Tingkai]

Which begs the question of why the US blocked the peacekeeping efforts. The resolution mentioning the International Criminal Court specifically mentioned the countires like the US which are not a signatory of the ICC agreement would not be covered by the resolution. The US had nothing to lose by agreeing with the resolution.

The Bush administration's behavious was simply shameful and went against what the US stands for.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Which begs the question of why the US blocked the peacekeeping efforts.

If we had our way action would have happened last year at the very least.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can only read half of what just went down, but it appears that Tingkai just got pwned...

[Dinner]

Does this surprise anyone?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If we had our way action would have happened last year at the very least.

Ah yes, last year, that's when the righteous US declared a genocide was happening in Sudan and the response proposed by the US was to impose a international travel ban on the militia.

Yup, where would we be without the decisive leadership of the Bush administration.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I can only read half of what just went down, but it appears that Tingkai just got pwned...

So you know only half the facts, but you decide your opinion is worthwhile.

[Tingkai]

The thing that I don't get is how the US was able to squander its global leadership in just a few years.

In the late-1990s, the US was seen as the country to emulate economically. Now people are questioning its economic strength.

From the first Gulf War onwards, the US was being seen as a military leader for peacekeeping efforts. Even when things went wrong, like in Somalia, most people recognised that at least the US was trying to make things better.

Right after 9/11, the world was supportive of the fight against terrorism. The US tactics were questioned, but no one disagreed with the goals.

Yet a few years later, and the US is no longer a leader. Fewer and fewer countries are willing to follow the US's leadership and that's mainly because the Bush administation doesn't want to lead., it wants to dictate, but it can't because people aren't goingto blindly follow the Bush crowd.

It's a shame really, because there so much that the US has accomplished that much of the world should emulate. There's so much that the US could do if it checked its ego at the door.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yup, where would we be without the decisive leadership of the Bush administration.

The French and Chinese would likely be making more money selling weapons for use against innocent villagers. What bastards we are.

I really would be interested in your defense of the main roadblock to action (China) on this issue rather than continuing on the merry go round where you mindlessly sling mud at the main force on the UNSC pushing for action.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The thing that I don't get is how the US was able to squander its global leadership in just a few years.

In the late-1990s, the US was seen as the country to emulate economically. Now people are questioning its economic strength.

From the first Gulf War onwards, the US was being seen as a military leader for peacekeeping efforts. Even when things went wrong, like in Somalia, most people recognised that at least the US was trying to make things better.

Right after 9/11, the world was supportive of the fight against terrorism. The US tactics were questioned, but no one disagreed with the goals.

Yet a few years later, and the US is no longer a leader. Fewer and fewer countries are willing to follow the US's leadership and that's mainly because the Bush administation doesn't want to lead., it wants to dictate, but it can't because people aren't goingto blindly follow the Bush crowd.

It's a shame really, because there so much that the US has accomplished that much of the world should emulate. There's so much that the US could do if it checked its ego at the door.

[Tingkai]

(Brussels, March 24, 2005) – The United States is blocking U.N. Security Council action on the human rights crisis in Darfur on account of the Bush administration’s hostility to the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch said today. On Tuesday, the United States proposed splitting a U.N. Security Council draft resolution on Sudan into three separate resolutions, none of which would authorize a tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity in Darfur.

“The United States is hanging the people of Darfur out to dry by stalling on justice,” said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program. “After labeling Darfur a genocide, the United States is now blocking the credible threat of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, which could immediately deter further violence in Darfur.”

The U.S. move follows ongoing negotiations among all Security Council members on a single Sudan resolution on justice, targeted sanctions, and a peace-support mission. The U.N. peace-support mission for Sudan is to implement the Naivasha peace agreement, the accord ending the 21-year civil war between the Sudanese government and southern-based rebels. The mission of 10,000 troops will cover areas in the north and south of Sudan, but not Darfur, where continuing fighting and violence against civilians has created a human rights disaster.

“In the guise of taking action on a peacekeeping force in the North-South conflict, the United States is pushing aside measures needed to deal with atrocities in Darfur,” said Dicker. “Vague commitments to accountability are not enough. The heinous crimes committed in Darfur need immediate investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court.”

-- Human Rights Watch

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/sudan10367.htm