U.s. Proposes 10,000 U.n. Peacekeepers For Sudan

[Biggie]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/0...pers/index.html

 

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United States on Monday proposed sending to Sudan up to 10,000 United Nations peacekeepers who would have the authority to use force to "protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence."

 

Deputy U.S. Ambassador Stuart Holliday said the proposal would mean U.N. peacekeepers could be in a position to protect civilians in Darfur but added that the United States is leaving it up to the United Nations to advise on where the troops would be deployed.

 

In January, Sudan's government and main rebel group signed comprehensive peace accords to end more than 21 years of civil war between north and south. International officials expressed hope that the agreement will bring the government closer to solving problems in the western Darfur region. (Full story)

 

However, it is not yet clear if the Sudanese government will allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur. Pressed on the question, Holliday would only say, "Sudan has not denied" permission.

 

The proposed troops would also monitor a cease-fire agreement in Darfur and movement of any armed groups.

 

Holliday introduced the proposal in a draft resolution circulated Monday to the 14 other members of the U.N. Security Council.

 

Holliday said the proposed peacekeepers would be working as a complement to the African Union troops deployed there. In addition to the 10,000 peacekeepers, the resolution proposes 715 civilian police and human rights and legal experts.

 

In the draft resolution, the United States also proposed a travel ban and freeze on assets of any individuals responsible for violating the cease-fire agreement in the Darfur region.

 

The draft also proposed an expanded arms embargo. A current arms embargo, which covers the Janjaweed militia and rebel members "hasn't had much effect to date," said Holliday.

 

Under the new resolution, the arms embargo would be expanded to include the government of Sudan in Darfur. Any government movement of weapons would have to be approved by the Security Council.

 

The resolution does not include a ban on Sudan's petroleum sector -- which council members China and Russia have opposed. Instead the resolution says an oil ban would be considered if the situation in Darfur "continues to deteriorate."

 

The draft resolution does not address the contentious issue of where to try those accused of war crimes in Darfur. Holliday said that would be addressed in a future resolution.

 

Most members of the Security Council want to use the existing International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands. The United States opposes that court and wants an existing tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania, to be used instead.

 

Under the resolution, a panel of experts would work with a Security Council committee to identify individuals who should be singled out for sanction.

 

In the wake of recent sex scandals in which U.N. peacekeepers abused civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the U.S. draft requests U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan establish a "Personnel Conduct Unit" in the proposed Sudan mission to prevent and identify perpetrators of sexual exploitation and abuse. (Full story)

 

In a report issued late last month, the United Nations found that the government of Sudan and Janjaweed militias have acted together in committing widespread atrocities in Darfur that should be prosecuted by an international war crimes tribunal.

 

However, the report concluded that the violent acts have not amounted to genocide. (Full story)

 

The United Nations has estimated that since it began documenting deaths there last April more than 70,000 people have died in Sudan -- the result of the violence and malnutrition plaguing the area. Many more are thought to have died before that.

 

The conflict has displaced an estimated 1.6 million people within Darfur, with another 200,000 fleeing to neighboring Chad, according to U.N. figures.

[ecnarf]

It's about bloody time.

[no yu begin wher i end]

But remember folks, it's still not genocide...

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

I don't understand. There's no oil in Darfur.

[penismightier]

you're an idiot if truly believe that the War on Iraq was primarily based for oil.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

Well, that's the most common liberal criticism. Just thought I'd try to look cool. ;)

[Radiohead]

you're an idiot if truly believe that the War on Iraq was primarily based for oil.

You're right, it was primarily based on revenge, and the Lesser Bush finishing his Daddy's business for him.

 

Oil was just the bonus prize.

 

Because, as we all know, the wealth of WMDs that the Iraqis had was a impending threat to the Western world and the very existence of human kind... what? They didn't have any? I guess they'll have to find a new excuse now. "Liberation of Iraqis" sounds good, now lets all just forget about all the ones we killed and abused.

 

 

As for Dafur, it'll never happen, people just can't be bothered about any place they can't readily find on a map, IE Rwanda, Nigeria, etc.

 

People cared about he tsunami because everyone knows where India and Indonesia are, and new reports came like wildfire.

 

The situation in Africa is such that the AIDS epidemic causes roughly the loss of life equal to a Tsunami per week, but then again getting AIDS is their fault right? Thank God the USA is funding all this abstinence education because that sure does help people from giving into carnal urges, and does a hell of a lot more good than a pack of condoms and some real humanitarian relief.

 

Darfur is just a blip on the Radar, and only the hardcore activists actually care about it. It pissed me off that the Tsunami got so much more coverage than Darfur when they're catastrophes of about equal proportion. But then I reminded myself that AMERICANS and WHITE PEOPLE were among the casualties of the Tsunami, so OF COURSE it had to have a vastly greater amount of coverage and outpouring of support. Love thy neighbour and let everyone in the far off lands suffer and all that Christian stuff.

 

One of the first news reports I heard about the Tsunami was about how a Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover model from a few years back was involved in the tsunami, but survived. Apparently one Western model is more important the the countless villages and cities wiped out that it had to have first crack at coverage

 

 

In summary, this world has gone to hell, and no one would pay an additional five cents per litre of gas to save the world.

 

That is all.

[toolboxnj]

Why should the United States do anything about any of the regional conflicts in the world? A foreign policy of altruism is suicide, and the United States has been slipping down that slide since Vietnam.

 

I don't understand. There's no oil in Darfur.

 

Expensive oil, eh? Plus, the United States only gets a fraction of their oil imports from the Middle East. Much of it comes from Canada and Mexico. There is no oil is Bosnia or Liberia either.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

you're an idiot if truly believe that the War on Iraq was primarily based for oil.

 

The situation in Africa is such that the AIDS epidemic causes roughly the loss of life equal to a Tsunami per week, but then again getting AIDS is their fault right? Thank God the USA is funding all this abstinence education because that sure does help people from giving into carnal urges, and does a hell of a lot more good than a pack of condoms and some real humanitarian relief.

 

Well, I do believe conceptatives should be made available, but you can't deny the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is abistinence and monogamy.

 

Carnal urges? People aren't animals. We don't go around shagging each other because its just our instinct.

[MakesYouAWeapon]

Crazy thing, actually; people ARE animals. If you need evidence of that look at the divorce rate. People fuck whatever they can; that's a genetic instinct, and when you'r epoorly educated and don't even know what AIDS is, it's pretty much impossible to willingly prevent it.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

and when you'r epoorly educated and don't even know what AIDS is, it's pretty much impossible to willingly prevent it.

That's the solution to the problem. We need to help educate them as to how to prevent transmission. It needs to be taught that sex spreads this disease, especially when it's mostly unprotected.

[Radiohead]

and when you'r epoorly educated and don't even know what AIDS is, it's pretty much impossible to willingly prevent it.

That's the solution to the problem. We need to help educate them as to how to prevent transmission. It needs to be taught that sex spreads this disease, especially when it's mostly unprotected.

When you're making a dollar a day, you're covered in flies and you can't find food to eat or clean water to drink, you tend to be willing to trade that good-natured education for a bag of rice, and you pray that foreign governments will start sending water purification and medicine rather than their clumsy, narrow minded education.

 

Education is useless when you just don't care, so until we give these people the means to care we need to concentrate on prevention through sending prophylactics and humanitarian relief in order to give these people something to care about.

 

Abstinence is the last thing on anyones mind when you havn't eaten in a few days.

[MakesYouAWeapon]

Abstinence is the last thing on anyones mind when you havn't eaten in a few days.

Funnily enough, as you think a hungry, disease ridden person would have sex being the last thing on their mind.

 

Anyway I think you're off on the situation. It's not like they get drafted and get an "education stamp" they can trade for food. Yes they need food and yes they need water but all of that will be useless if they grow up without means with which to make a living and serve the sole purpose of transmitting HIV.

 

Education = ++

[Radiohead]

Abstinence is the last thing on anyones mind when you havn't eaten in a few days.

Funnily enough, as you think a hungry, disease ridden person would have sex being the last thing on their mind.

 

Anyway I think you're off on the situation. It's not like they get drafted and get an "education stamp" they can trade for food. Yes they need food and yes they need water but all of that will be useless if they grow up without means with which to make a living and serve the sole purpose of transmitting HIV.

 

Education = ++

Hence, one step at a time.

 

Yes, it will all be wasted if they have no means and can only transmit HIV, as you so aptly pointed out.

 

However, all that education will be wasted if you're only spending money on someone's mind without nourishing the body. Education is wasted if they don't have any outs, if they don't have any care whether they live or die.

 

So in that sense the chicken must come before he egg, if it cannot come simultaneously. You must give someone hope before you can give someone means, giving them means without hope doesn't do anyone any good, else they languish in their destitude and end up not caring about what they educators had tried to teach them.

 

I will also point out that the education being funded is not there to give them means to an end, but there to support abstinence among the populations. A goal that seems more likely one of controlling the population of these "undesirables" of the West rather then preventing AIDS. Because, after all, once you have AIDS, what do you care if you give it to someone? This can be the fundamental undermining of the education, especially in a place where rape of women is far more prevalent.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

Why do you think that we can't educate about HIV transmission and help allieviate poverty at the same time?

 

True, once you have AIDS you might not care, but if people who don't have it learn that promiscuity is a fast way to get it, perhaps it can reduce the spread.

[Radiohead]

Why do you think that we can't educate about HIV transmission and help allieviate poverty at the same time?   

 

True, once you have AIDS you might not care, but if people who don't have it learn that promiscuity is a fast way to get it, perhaps it can reduce the spread.

Because, for the simple fact that that won't alleviate the problem.

 

The education campaign, in my mind, is more a way for Western nations to feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves, like they're lending a hand, while not doing anything, in practical terms, to reduce the problem.

 

But I also don't think reduction of the problem is point. These people aren't White, and aren't citizens of any Western nation. It's a convenient way of eliminating people who aren't your close friends while prentending you're helping them.

 

In 1948, there was a internal memo in the United States to Pres. Truman (NSC 68?), since declassified, that stated that the United States contained 50% of the wealth and only 6% of the population, and that the foreign policies of the United States should be such to perpetuate this inequality in their favour. This has been the driving force behind U.S. relations with the rest of the world, and the primary idea behind the exploitationist state that's arisen.

 

Providing minimalist aid, IE the education program, has been part of this program, make it look like they're doing something, and forgoing the more expensive program of providing real solutions to a dire problem. Showing real concern for foreign people is not part of the playbook, and it never reall was, it's all about image, and perpetuating wealth inequality.

 

The United States knows the education program won't do anything, but it makes it look like they care to a degree, and in the end, that's all that matters.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Radiohead

[ecnarf]

I don't understand.  There's no oil in Darfur.

There's oil in other parts of Sudan.

 

EDIT: as for education about AIDS, you have to realize that in many parts of Africa, people think that once you get AIDS, having sex with a virgin will cure it, particularly in rural areas, it's not about just about getting people to use condoms.

Edited February 17, 2005 by ecnarf

[Biggie]

You guys have hijacked my thread. But please, enlighten us how to best tackle the AIDS crisis, if education isn't part of the solution.

 

EDIT: I gotta add this. Radiohead, you're a complete moron. Why do we educate our students in health classes about sex education? So they don't get pregnant or STDs. Why do the health authorities educate us on washing our hands and other measures when there is a flu outbreak or something like the SARS epidemic? To curb the spread of the sickness!!!

 

If it isn't made clear that sex spreads AIDS, it will continue to spread. I'm not sure why you argue with that.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Biggie

[Radiohead]

You guys have hijacked my thread. But please, enlighten us how to best tackle the AIDS crisis, if education isn't part of the solution.

 

EDIT: I gotta add this. Radiohead, you're a complete moron. Why do we educate our students in health classes about sex education? So they don't get pregnant or STDs. Why do the health authorities educate us on washing our hands and other measures when there is a flu outbreak or something like the SARS epidemic? To curb the spread of the sickness!!!

 

If it isn't made clear that sex spreads AIDS, it will continue to spread. I'm not sure why you argue with that.

If that's the case, then all of you have completely missed my point on that subject, and I have nothing more to add.

 

In any case, back to the matter at hand.

 

 

How about that Darfur place? Pretty crazy eh?

[Biggie]

I gather you think efforts so far have been lackluster, which I agree with.

 

But this quote: "Because, for the simple fact that that won't alleviate the problem." Led me to the conclusion you didn't think it would do anything.

[MakesYouAWeapon]

Just FYI, their education will also teach them english, which will help them to fit in with the American occup... companies that will set up shop in the region.

 

While it's debatable whether sweatshops develop a region, there really isn't much else in the Sudan. At least with factory work they will have money, shelter, food... even if they are basically enslaved, they are basically enslaved to poverty and it's not much the better landlord.

 

Edit: Damn Biggie for bringing this back on topic. Anyway, it works for Africa too. Come to think of it...

Edited February 17, 2005 by MakesYouAWeapon