I'm Kofi Anan, and I approve this message. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/o...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/David Brooks -- 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.
The U.S. has made a decent effort, but showed nowhere near the focus they did on Iraq. If the U.S. put that kind of effort into bringing attention to the crisis, something would get done. Saying there is a problem, and mentioning it once or twice isn't exactly leadership on getting things done.
Why does the US have to put any effort into the Sudan? Why can't France or Germany or Canada take the lead on this one? The article makes its point: The UN is worthless and the only country that is willing to actually lead (as opposed to half-heartedly follow or protest) is the US. Europe couldn't take care of Milosevic by itself. It couldn't take care of Hitler or the Soviet Union by itself. Sudan is a GREAT opportunity for the EU to show leadership in the world but it won't. They'll complain but they won't actually do anything.
Because we are the sole superpower, and should be world leaders. We should spread democracy by taking leadership roles on important issues such as this. Yes I believe the EU should be way more active in dealing with the Sudan. They are sitting by doing nothing, and in fact doing much less than the U.S. in regards to dealing with the problem. But the world doesn't look to the EU for leadership they look to the U.S. During the Rockets championship days Hakeem never backed off from doing the work, feeling that maybe one game or other would be a good time for his teammates to deal with the Rockets' opponents. Hakeem took the lead and did the work night in and night out, because he was the leader. He was the superpower. There is a problem in Sudan, and we can either sit back and hope somebody else deals with it, or we can take the lead, put on some pressure and see that the job gets done ourselves. As for the Balkans we did help, but don't act like we went in their and saved the day. 80% of the troops on the ground there were European.
So Basso shouldn't you be advocating we unilaterally, or at least with a coalition of the willing, go into Sudan and stop the suffering of the people of Darfur. You've made a good point of showing how weak and ineffectual the UN is but this argument is a moral double edged sword. If the Admin really cares about human rights, liberty and all that other stuff we could easily dispatch a few brigades to Sudan and wipe out those militias. So fine the UN is hollow, but apparently so is the Admin's rhetoric on human rights since they won't even bother to commit troops to what even they call a genocide.
<a HREF="http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=40907&SelectRegion=East_Africa&SelectCountry=SUDAN">SUDAN: Senior UN officials deplore humanitarian situation in Darfur</a> <i> NAIROBI, 5 May 2004 (IRIN) - The humanitarian crisis in Darfur, western Sudan, is one of the worst in the world, and has been devastating to women and girls, according to senior UN officials. "This is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, with so many people in the most belligerent way being chased from their homes. Everything has been taken away from these people. This is tragic," UN World Food Programme Executive Director James Morris was quoted by UN News as saying in London on Tuesday. Morris last week led a high-level UN team to assess the situation in Darfur. The team also comprised Ambassador Tom Eric Vraalsen, the UN secretary-general's special envoy for humanitarian affairs in Sudan, and other senior officials from UN headquarters and agencies. It toured the three states of Darfur regions, from 28 to 30 April, to "gather first-hand information on the humanitarian situation, and assess the scope of the crisis". The Darfur conflict, which erupted early last year between the Sudanese government and militias allied to it on the one hand and two rebel groups on the other hand, has displaced over one million people, while some 110,000 others have fled to Chad. It has also been described by the UN as "one of the world's most neglected humanitarian crises". Despite a ceasefire agreement signed on 8 April between the government and the rebels, which led to a reduction of hostilities, the humanitarian crisis persists. "There's an urgency about our work, because people are suffering and the rainy season is just ahead of us and we need to get our work done as much in anticipation of the rainy season as is possible," Morris said. The continuing conflict was having a devastating effect on women and girls, according to Pamela Delargy, the chief of the humanitarian response unit of the UN Population Fund, who was part of the team led by Morris. Women and girls were vulnerable both during attacks and when they left camps for internally displaced persons to do chores to gather water, fuel or fodder, she said. "As in many other recent conflicts, rape has become a weapon of war in western Sudan, with disastrous consequences for women and girls," she added. <b> Meanwhile Sudan was on Tuesday reelected to the UN Human Rights Commission, despite objections mainly by the United States. Sudan was among 14 countries elected to the UN's highest forum for examining human rights around the world. The nomination, by the African Group, prompted the US delegation to walk out. The other African countries named onto the commission were Guinea, Kenya and Togo.</b></i> <a HREF="http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=2957">Sudan's ignored genocide</a> I haven't found any other UN delegation mentioned as walking out with the US delegation. Have you ever heard of country groups such as: OIC Arab League Non-Aligned Movement etc ? Could you specify which countries in the <i>world</i> look to the U.S. for leadership?
Sudan is a black moslem nation located in the heart of the sahara in Africa. They do not have oil (at least worthy of note). They are not sexy. The USA (or at least the Texas oil men) does not have a financial interest there. Those Sudanese can burn in hell for all we care. They have nothing that interests us. So they have to figure out their problem on their cos we ain't commiting in meaningless and worthless causes like the one the present. move on....
If you look at what happened in the Balkans the Europeans continually said they couldn't do anything until the US stepped in even though it was in their own backyard.
Ah......I know about the UN - Balkans - Europe - NATO - US. Here is an article about the Europe - US that touches on some of the issues in this thread: <a HREF="http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/daalder/useuropechapter.pdf"> "The United States and Europe: From Primacy to Partnership? (June 2001)</a> If a new <i>Balkans</i> type of situation would arise on the <i>Continent</i> today, would things play out the same way with the UN being ineffective and the US having to take the lead with NATO? The UN being ineffective is likely and the NATO intervention is still probable. Not sure if the US would be leading as things seem to have changed as the <i>Cold War</i> and the USSR become distant memories .....but France, Germany etc still seem questionable in the leadership area. Britian would be my guess as the leader in place of the US. The dynamics between Europe and the US in regards to the leadership issue have likely changed since the 1990's which is the timeframe of the Balkans and the US leadership through NATO. The key thing is that Europe is fairly stable and with some pacifist tendencies. Major conflicts, humanitarian concerns and other issues are mainly located in parts of the world beyond the realm of NATO. Over the years, the US had various treaties/alliances/mutual defense pacts such as: * NATO * ANZUS * SEATO etc The elimination of the <i>Cold War</i> threat has rendered some of those alliances as relics of the past. The US isn't part of country groupings such as: * AU * OIC * Arab League * NAM * ECOWAS etc and it is in those parts of the world were there are problems that make the news. Use of NATO forces (within a NATO framework to replace AU intervention) to foster a better environment in Sudan is unlikely.
The problem with these international organizations is that they are no geared obviously for rapid decision-making. While people in the Sudan are dying, these diplo-dunks are drinking expensive champagne and forming "blue-ribbon" panels to "study" the matter. As a result, I doubt we'll see any serious intervention in the Sudan unless we do it ourselves.
this isn't a question of spreading democracy or liberty or any of the follow on justifications the bush admin has offered as side-benefits of the iRaq war. this is a question of basic human survival, and is precisely the type of situation for which the UN was founded. yes, in a perfect world we could/would act alone when the rest of the world is in default, but in fact the continued rhetoric from "some" quarters about US unilateralism has made that prospect less likely. words, like actions, have consequences. and Fegwu, Sudan has significant oil reserves, and both france and russia has oil intrerests there, one of the reasons the security council has been so feckless on this issue. unlike iRaq however, the US has no strategic interests in Sudan, so the real responibility of dealing with the tragedy there falls to the UN, not the EC, NATO, or the US. how ironic that Kofi Anan can summon sufficient high-dudgeon to be out-raged at the US for removing Saddam Hussein, yet can't summon the moral clarity to denounce the slaughter of his fellow "black africans."
Yes I've heard of these groups and even had to deal with some of them in a very limited way in a past job. The countries that look to the U.S. for leadership are way too many to list. I will mention some of them. Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the PLO: All look to the U.S. for help in the Israeli Palestinian peace process. Many asked and/or believed the U.S. to be an honest broker in the process. England, France, Spain, Australia, Turkey: All lent their support to the U.S. after 9/11, and followed the U.S. leadership into military action in Afghanistan. The UN in general looks to the U.S. for leadership. When Bush went to the UN prior to the Iraq invasion and asked the UN to stop letting Saddam slide, and put forth a resolution against Iraq should they not cooperate with them, the UN took action. That was a clear example of the U.S. going before the UN and exerting it's leadership role. The UN fell in line, and weapons inspectors were sent back in. Through ongoing negotiations there were even further steps taken to help monitor Iraq. The UN example is the one most comporable to the crisis we face today. If G.W. Bush was making speeches time and time again that illustrated the conditions, crimes and dangers going on in Sudan, as well invested in diplomatic visits, and presentations before the UN something might actually be done. Certainly if a leader with diplomatic ability put forth as much effort as was mentioned above, I believe we would have UN intervention. Because there is an OIC, Arab League etc. doesn't mean that the countries involved don't also follow the leadership provided by the U.S.
The UN is only as effective as its members, and particularly the five permanent security council members with the veto powers. All of which abuse their veto powers (including the US especially in the case of Isreal) while South America and Africa have no representation. Kofi Annan can talk all he wants but unless he has military and economic backing from the five members then it means nothing. While the UN must take soome responsibilty or its numerous failers blaming it alone is a cop out. What is needed is some serios reform from veto powers to the amount of money each nation contributes.
Relations between Israel and the EU are somewhat cool, so the US is seen as the country that still has some <i>influence</i> with Israel. ...and the rest of the Muslim World has done what to aid their fellow OIC member? Even after lamenting tragic events in Rwanda during the early 90's, the UN could not agree to forceful action in the Balkans. Eventually, it was NATO that brought force to bear. In regards to the Iraq inspections example.........the current Sudan situation has already been through the diplomacy stage and is in need of the UN actually taking some action. That is the stage that the UN usually shies away from. I used this in a previous thread, but it also fits here: The OIC sent a delegation to Sudan this summer to view the situation in the Darfur area. <a HREF="http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/august%202004/rep-darfur-en.htm"> REPORT OF THE OIC MISSION TO ASSESS THE SITUATION IN THE DARFUR REGION OF THE SUDAN</a> <i>.........Upon a request made by the UN Secretary General H.E. Mr. Kofi Annan, the OIC Secretary General H.E. Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, decided to dispatch an OIC mission to the Darfur region in the Republic of the Sudan. At the invitation of the Government of the Sudan, a three-member OIC Mission led by H.E. Ambassador Ezzat Kamel Mufti, Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, and comprising Mr. Kamal Momini and Dr. Irfan Yusuf Shami, Directors in the Political Affairs department, visited Khartoum and Darfur from 05-08 June 2004.............. Mission’s assessment of the current situation: <b> Contrary to the reports of international organizations and the international media, the mission found the Government of Sudan to be exerting all possible and sustained efforts, within their own scarce resources, to peacefully resolve the Darfur crisis and to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. The mission did not find any evidence of there being the “worst humanitarian situation in the world” or any comparison whatsoever with the well-documented and substantiated genocide and ethnic cleansing which occurred in Rwanda in 1994........... Conclusion and recommendations: The situation in the Darfur region is being erroneously and negatively depicted by some international organizations and the international media. The situation has been blown out of proportions and being projected on the basis of unfounded and baseless allegations and reports. The sincere as well as sustained efforts of the Government of the Sudan have either been neglected or have not been positively depicted. As an important member of the OIC, it is extremely important that the OIC Member States should express their solidarity with the Government of the Sudan and strongly support its efforts, both politically as well as in the substantial material terms. </b> In view of the impending rainy season in late June and its concomitant agricultural harvest season, it is imperative that the international community, particularly OIC Member States, urgently provide to the Government of the Sudan the immediate shortfall of food-stuff along with tents, plastic covers and essential medicines. In view of the urgency involved, the Government of Sudan has requested that these relief supplies be directly airlifted to the worst affected areas of Darfur through the Al-Fasher and Nyala airports.</i> <hr color=green> When Sudan was on the UN agenda, two OIC members (Pakistan & Algeria) were reluctant to discuss the matter: <a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/11/sudan.un/">Security Council endorses resolution on Sudan</a> <i>..........Pakistan, China and Algeria -- the Arab member on the Security Council -- are the countries with ties to Sudan "who did not want Darfur discussed at all," a Security Council source told CNN. "The government in Khartoum has lobbied hard for these countries not to support this resolution," the source said. "The Sudanese do not want conflict in their country to be a U.N. issue -- they associate the U.N. with the U.S. and are they are deeply suspicious of the U.S." Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador to the United Nations, conceded there was "disagreement about whether or not we should address the situation concerning Darfur, but we got a letter from the secretary-general last week saying we cannot ignore the western part, and so we reached an agreement to include it."....</i> <hr color=green> There was a June 2004 meeting of the OIC Foreign Ministers, but they failed to mention Sudan in their Declaration. <a HREF="http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/31/31%20icfm-DECLARATION-eng.htm">ISTANBUL DECLARATION ADOPTED BY THE THIRTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS</a> <i>We, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation participating in the Thirty-First Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, the Session of “Progress and Global Harmony”, solemnly declare the following: 1. We reaffirm our commitment to the purposes, objectives and principles of our Organization, as enshrined in its Charter. 2. We derive strength and confidence from Islam, a religion of peace, harmony and tolerance. It inspires us in achieving freedom, peace and prosperity. 3. We have taken full stock of the developments that characterize the current international scene and agreed to assert our collective will more effectively with the sole objective of achieving justice, peace and harmony. 4. We are resolved to pursue the peaceful settlement of all international issues and spend efforts to persuade all parties concerned to act accordingly. 5. We decide to offer our immediate support to enhance the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and for their right to freedom and to the establishment of the independent and sovereign Palestinian State. We urge the Quartet to work to stop the Israeli aggression in all its forms, secure international protection for the Palestinian people and guarantee free movement for the people and their leadership, and seek a lasting solution through the implementation of the road-map which is based on the UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, as well as the UN General Assembly resolution 194, principles of the Madrid Conference and the Arab Peace Initiative, which will aim to bring comprehensive peace to the region, including the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. We have thus decided to support and closely monitor efforts towards comprehensive peace and to declare that the successful outcome of these efforts will be fully embraced by the OIC. 6. We support the steps towards ending the occupation in Iraq. We equally support the process in which the Iraqis will assume their sovereignty. We state that this assumption of authority must be full. Also the political transition towards the formation of an elected government must be totally inclusive and transparent. We welcome in this respect the unanimous adoption of resolution 1546 by the United Nations Security Council which sets the framework for this transition. We have decided to actively assist Iraq in its transition and in meeting its needs. 7. We will continue to support Afghanistan’s re-building process. We reiterate our principled position on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. All rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir including their right of self-determination as provided for by the UN Security Council resolutions should be fully respected and their will honoured. We also welcome the dialogue process started by Pakistan and India and express the hope that it will culminate in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. We likewise support the resolution of the Azeri-Armenian conflict within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. We equally support efforts towards resolving all other issues preoccupying the OIC. 8. We decide to give particular attention to the longstanding problems of regional conflict, economic development, health and famine in Africa. We will support the peaceful resolution of these conflicts and the sustainable development and social progress in Africa. We shall fully play our share in these efforts. 9. We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms, including state terrorism, and express deep sympathy and support for those countries which have become victims of such attacks. We agree to redouble our efforts in fighting this international scourge. 10. We commend the Turkish Cypriot people for overwhelmingly endorsing the UN Settlement Plan, on the unification of the Island, based on a new bi-zonal partnership of the two politically equal constituent States. We welcome and support the report of the UN Secretary-General, of 28 May 2004, as well as the conclusions and recommendations contained therein. We also support the good offices mission of the UN Secretary-General. In view of the fundamentally changed circumstances in Cyprus following the 24 April 2004 referenda, we decide to take steps in putting an end to the unjust isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. In the same vein, we look forward to similar action by the international community and bodies. 11. We are determined to carry on with our political, economic, social and cultural progress as sovereign nations, and assist each other in our homegrown efforts. In expression of our confidence in our strength and values, and with a view to deepening interaction within the OIC as well as to strengthening understanding and cooperation at global level, we set out the following framework and course of action: We are sovereign nations who work for political, economic, social and cultural progress. We value our freedom and the equality of our citizens. We all aim to strengthen the representative character and the democratic practices of our governments. We are all determined to provide contemporary education to our new generation. We will pursue vigorously the economic and social development of our societies, and will deploy efforts to eradicate poverty. We, as the OIC members, will assist each other in our progress and reform, which should come from within. The OIC, as an institution, will also develop ways and means for supporting progress in a collective framework. We endorse the concept of Enlightened Moderation and call for the early establishment of the Commission of Eminent Persons to enable the Ummah to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The OIC will likewise establish institutional relations with other regional and international organizations for the purpose of fostering intra and inter-regional cooperation for drawing support for the OIC projects. 12. We look forward to the Second Meeting of the OIC-EU Joint Forum that will convene in Istanbul between 4 and 5 October 2004, which will be an important opportunity for strengthening international cooperation and understanding. 13. Finally, we reiterate our will to stay closer to each other and strengthen our solidarity while navigating through these difficult times.</i> I doubt that the OIC, Arab League and China can be <i>moved</i> enough about the humanitarian issue to actually allow the UN to do anything forceful about changing the Sudan situation.
Yes, it has. My point is that not enough was done during the diplomatic stage to push action. I wanted to see Powell down there displaying evidence and making the case. I wanted to see Bush talking about it night in and night out to congress, in order to bring attention to the situation. They did all of those things toward Iraq, why not pursue the same actions in regards to getting action done with Sudan? The OIC is wrong here. Again if we had made the presentation with the evidence that I mentioned earlier they wouldn't be able to get away with that.
Since the US seems to have more interest in the Sudan situation than most countries, I don't understand the need to go to Congress when the obstacles are at the UN. You mean like this? <a HREF="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=727682004">True extent of Sudan's agony revealed by NASA images </a> Exactly what could be done to prevent the OIC from getting away with it, shame them?
Going to congress would be to appropriate funds to the effort of humanitarian aid, personell and perhaps a congressional investigation into matters which might in the end require them to authorize the president to use force. Of course the authorization should be a semi-bluff to show the world we are serious about solving the problem. Our nation right now is one of the leaders in speaking out against the Sudan. I praise our administration for that. But I think we can and should do more. As far as shaming the OIC, and not letting them get away with that that would be done with providing evidence contrary to their report.
