Readers’ Responses to Our Question (105)

Hola.! Feliz ano nuevo.!

inaptsvl gxvz jwidhmcze dclf tzpjks nbkcgpm idhnqk

inaptsvl gxvz jwidhmcze dclf tzpjks nbkcgpm idhnqk

inaptsvl gxvz jwidhmcze dclf tzpjks nbkcgpm idhnqk

FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com

Simple just discover oil there. Bush and Cheney will soon have us there to liberate the people and give women the right to vote while spreading democracy. Don't forget to save the children. Why I think I even overheard a conversation that eluded to alqueda being there creating wmd's. Now come on people roll up your sleeves "it's hard work".

good work

We have a moral obligation to help the citizens of Darfur. NOTHING SHOULD EVER TRUMP HUMAN RIGHTS. It is important that we save these innocent people from ultimate death. Yes, the problem lies with rebels and the sudanese regim. BUT, the rebels ARE NOT the only ones getting killed. Innocent ethnic peoples are being slaughtered. This has turned into MUCH, MUCH more than a rebellion. It has turned into GENOCIDE. The US government recognizes it as such, and so should each individual person. This is what it is. Plain and simple. Don't stand by. STAND up.

Drima - and some of the rest of you...

We can all point fingers at the UN - it is the scapegoat of world affairs...

But who sits in the Security Council? Who fund the UN's work? Who sits in the general assembly?

We should point the fingers at the member states - the United Nations!

It does not need to be UN troops. But AU do not have the mandate nor the money. We can buy us out of the money problem, but we still need the mandate to get more action done.

Andreas, The Oslo Blog

your challenge is stupid......China's human rights violations are well known.....

as are American, give me twenty pages on school of the Americas and Negroponte in Honduras or shut up.........

you define your self as something you are not. I define my self as someone who is without comparison to someone else..........

.

I think a big part of the problem is that the people of Darfur have been written off by the majority of the Moslem/Arab world. In fact, I venture that there is a good section of the Arab world that supports the Sudanese government, for reasons that befuddle me.

Though the focus of the Moslem world often tends to be placed on Israel or the United States, nobody seems willing to address that unarguable fact that, by far, the biggest killer or Moslems are other Moslems. This is to the tune of hundreds on thousands in the past couple of decades (note the Iran/Iraq war, Darfur, Yemen, Lebanon Civil War, Algeria, Iraq/Kuwait etc.).

I think the world press and especially the Moslem press should be asking some searching questions along this line. The biggest question should be, ìdo we hate Jews and Americans far more than we love each other?î

The Arab League is irrelevant, and Sudan is no more than partly Arab. The experience of the African Union, on the other hand, is directly relevant, and so the answer is not merely that regional solidarity should be overridden. The history of their actions demonstrates that this has already gone beyond national borders and sovereignty issues, and that the region is rightly concerned by this lawlessness which freely spills over borders. The AU's representatives should come to the Security Council and state plainly that they need assistance, that they can not do the job by themselves.

P.S. Great coup to get Fareed Zakari on this forum, which I hadn't previously seen. He's doing more than anyone else to get Americans up the learning curve in understanding the world in which they live.

Darfur issue is a national issue.
United Nations has an agenda of peace.The Government Of Sudan Has an Agenda of Peace for their home as well!
When efforts are honored, there will be peace. Sudan Goverment will laugh and United Nations Will rejoice, the Peace Keepers Nations of the world even America will rejoice.
The Good God who has started good work over the peace of Darfur will make sufficient Grace Available for every good work of reconcilation for peace between Sudanese Government and United Nations Organisation in The Name Of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
There will be a reconcilation that will ensure total peace between the United Nations and The Sudanese Government.This is achieveable and possible!
Whatsoever that is needed for the peace of Both Sudanese Government and the United Nations will be brought Forth by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Thanks
Nigeria Representative
Genocide Intervention Network,

Drima,

While I am not a believer in UN troops being used in Sudan I do understand the logic behind it. There have simply been too many reports of abuses by AU troops. In this case outside independent troops, if used, would probably be more effective and fairer then AU forces.

Athiest,

TSK, TSK, TSK. Now you're equating the Chinese with the Nazi's. Do you understand any word begins to lose it's meaning when over used? First, the world had the Nazi's. Now we have the Islamofacists. You want to expand that to the Chinofacists. Before you know it we're going to have the Hindofacists, the democratofacists, the Latinofacists, etc. etc. The neocons are so over using and misusing this word anyone who is not a neocon will be labeled a Facist. Be very careful. At the rate you're going it will completely lose it's negative meaning and you'll have to come up with a new word like "neobarbarianism" to scare people.

I'm guessing you were relentlessly picked on as a child. What else would explain your universal hatred of everything and everyone on this planet?

The UN is nothing but garbage when it comes to the issue of Darfur. yes, that's right. The UN is plain dumb and stuck up. If the retards really do care about innocent life in Darfur, they will save us their damn useless meetings and actually do something usefull like financing and enforcing the AU troops.

Why does it have to be the UN troops? Why can't the AU do the job? The retarded UN just wants te be the hero of the day... I say screw them... strengthen the AU troops. Period!

Srikanth Raghunathan, Washington, D. C., USA

I have to admit that I found Jay’s piece to be particularly pompous and hypocritical on a subject that attracts these qualities in excess.

The brutal truth is that no sensible nation is going to send its best and brightest in to die so Jan Egelund can rush in with his humanitarian forces and lecture the world on CNN once more. I’ve heard a lot about the “UN’s responsibility to protect” vis a vis sovereignty lately. Its not happening, its not going to happen. Not the first time either. Who can forget Sebrenica.

I hate to say this but the only way the black folk in Darfur are going to get some protection is by ginning it up for themselves. Reminder….this is a civil war, there are rebel forces, they don’t consistently cooperate, they are outgunned and outclassed. Probably the most effective path is to support them sub-rosa. Detail a few Iraqis to train them in the fine arts of IED’s and the proper use of electric drills. Clearly the powers that be in Khartoum have yet to bleed enough to change their minds. The UN only works when the conflicting parties are equally exhausted and both actually want peace. This situation has not gotten that far.

Can't say I like the conclusion.

As China grows in power, you will experience the sickening influence of Chinese values.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060918-1533376,00.html

Most Chinese, not only the Chinese government, value money over human rights. If you are in an American university, you can easily see the truth of what I am saying. The 1st-generation/2nd-generation Chinese-Americans are vastly overrepresented in the engineering/business colleges, yet these Chinese-Americans are substantially underrepresented in meetings of the local chapter of Amnesty International (AI).

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Most of the American readers are within easy driving distance from a major university. Simply attend a meeting of the university chapter of AI. See the number of Chinese-Americans at the meeting of AI.

If I am wrong, then ignore what I am about to say. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

If I am right (and I am indeed right), then read carefully the following words.

Many apologists for the Chinese say, "That the Chinese sell weapons to the murderous Sudanese government or the murderous Khmer Rouge does not mean that we should condemn the Chinese. After all, the Chinese did not directly kill the Sudanese victims or the Cambodian victims." These same apologists saw no problem whatsoever with IBM's selling tabulating machines to the Nazis in 1939. These tabulating machines helped the Nazi regime to organize the names of the Jews destined for the gas chamber.

If you are sick to your stomach at the Chinese, the Nazis, and other animals, you can do something about this matter. Whenever you can do so, always buy products that are not made in China. For example, one light bulb says "Made in China". The other bulb says "Made in Vietnam". Buy the second bulb.

If you are Sudanese and you angry about what the Chinese are doing, you alone have the power to stop them. Give the addresses of prominent Chinese to the Muslim groups (in China) who hate Beijing. The Muslim groups will kill the Chinese.

If you are an American reporter, heed what I said about the Chinese indifference to human rights. Go ahead. Attend a meeting of Amnesty International at your local university and see the shocking underrepresentation of 1st-generation/2nd-generation Chinese at the meeting. Write up a story. It will be a shocker — for most naive Americans.

rants about china, not that he's wrong.......

"
The Chinese enthusiastically support the murderous govenment of the Sudan. The Chinese eagerly sell tons of weapons to the government.
"

I also suggest that you watch "Lords of War," with Nicolas Cage, good movie........that tells you how weapons dealers intervene to make sure some countries never get their feet under them....

sometimes genocide is a money maker.

.

.

The Darfur crisis underscore the possibility, if not the necessity of a kind of unilateralism different from the one displayed in the American decision to invade Irak.
This possibility is not entirely new. There is the precedent of Bosnia: Europeans were eager to let Milosevic accomplish the dirty job of 'cleaning' Europe for them, until Clinton decided to go after the Serbs with or without Europeans. It is only after Clinton took the decision that European jumped into the NATO bandwagon.
Some fear that for America doing something, outside of an UN -now bogged down by the Arab League- would be a thankless job, and could probably increase anti-US sentiment.
But quite on the contrary, an American intervention, will probably be seen as a benevolent action by many, not only in Africa, but throughout the world. This could be a good way for the current admistration to get out of the dark corner it is in now in the Middle East. Cynicism apart, This genocidal crisis represents a good 'occasion' (in the sense of Machiaveli) to act, to regain credibility, and to reboost American morals. On this one The US could really be the good 'disinterested' guy.

how about responding to this question:

what would happen if it could be proven that there was a

hidden agenda

of
uniting and turning a bunch of sleepy tribesmen into a terrorist insurgency, it takes time, and money....according to the lastest news reports we've been successful.......except with the spin taken off it's a lot easier to see _what_ is going on, and who is responsible.

neo conartists are _all_ about fabrication, and villification,

creating the terrorist out of sleepy tribesmen, linking them with WTC, Al Queardas, "butcher of bagdhad," blah blah blah

can't intervene without a strawman, excuse me, terrorists, so bushco and his appointees have been straining to squeeze out a big old ball of shinola....

to create an enemy after the collapse of the Soviet Union that would justify the continuing military expenditures

read this: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

it was the Republican, complicit congress, and DOD's agendae in 1997....to go to "war,"

when bush was elected, did he mention this agendae?

are there any legal repurcussions? ramifications? would we currently be in "a coup," if it were proved to be true and would those responsible be executed for treason?

who signed it want to know?

.

how about responding to this?

time for honest tea?

or maybe some indictments for treason? with commensurate punishments?

how about some Complicit Congress people or executive branch people? hope FBI/NSA/CIA/SS are watching these people.

Posted by: how about discussing this point?

I think Sudan government is making a mockery of the UN and the whole international system,by blatantly disrespecting ,disobeying,and ignoring resolution 1706.the leading countries like US and UK should work for an international joint front, and a collition against Albashir's regime and send peace keepers to Darfur Immediately.Any farther delay means an abdication of collective international responsibility,and continuation of genocide.

Neglect has often been used to allow situations to resolve themselves. Every nation is the watchdog of its own interests. Worse is yet to come.

If you know where one can volunteer to actually do something to help the people of Darfur [not donation - work, organizing, etc], please tell us.
Also, I find it very helpful when people talk directly to the point - ie how to prevent the bombing, killing, rape, dispossession. We can doubt the motives of many - and the US govt's invasion of Iraq and China's desire for Sudanese oil certainly make their motives suspect - but this can be a real diversion from the matter at hand. How do WE and others help the Darfurians without making the overalll situation worse and without causing more conflict in the long run?

Give the Arab League a choice: Let the UN in or accept responsibility for supporting all the refugees. Let the Arab League take some responsibility for their choice! If they don't cut off all aid, trade, and arms.

The doctrine of sovereignty cannot be used as the world's excuse not to rescue the people of Darfur. The world's leaders should turn their fine words and stated outrage into concrete action now. The extension of the African Union mandate cannot serve as even a temporary solution; its own leaders acknowledge that a Chapter VII mandate and more forces, technology, and logistical support are required.

President Bush, thank you for appointing Mr. Natsios as your Special Envoy to Sudan. Please instruct him that his top priority is ending the violence against the people of Darfur. Please give him all the necessary support, power, and access necessary to cause intervention in Darfur at the earliest possible time.

Some actions that could be taken to hasten the end of the genocide:

-The US and the European Union should impose targeted sanctions against Sudanís high-level officials, and they should cause the UN Security Council to do the same.

-The UN Security Council, the US and the EU should impress upon Khartoum that its renewed already-documented offensive in Darfur cannot avoid the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court, which has the legal power to prosecute genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

-The US must offer the funding, military resources, and logistical support necessary for a quick deployment of the newly authorized UN peacekeeping force, and it should actively lobby UN member states to commit their own troops and funds. This force must intervene with or without Sudanese government permission.

-Because UN peacekeepers' deployment will unfortunately follow a timetable far too slow for the situation (various UN officials predict a 2007 deployment for any UN force), President Bush must right now call on our NATO allies to ready the deployment of a NATO ìbridging forceî to Darfur. NATO has proven rapid-response capabilities, and has held training exercises in Western Sudan with African Union monitors.

-Numerous well-informed activists have called for the declaration of a "no-fly zone" over Darfur for months, if not longer. This would be enforced from a French airbase in Chad. These activists believe this would put an immediate stop to Sudan's perpetration of atrocities in Darfur.

-The US and EU must use all diplomatic and economic means possible to cause China, Sudan and the countries of the Arab League to understand that their longterm political and economic interests lie in allowing multinational forces to intervene in Darfur at the earliest possible date.

Cayambe, Philo, CA:

Oh boy, were you harsh on Jay McGinley, Washington, D. C.! (Uncharacteristically of you, you really sailed into him!) I must say that he does indeed have a few good points (that we are "mostly" talking and not doing anything). You also make a valid point in that If the Sudanese do not buy into the U. N., then we can all forget about it. I believe that China can and should step up to the plate and convince the Sudanese. (However, Chinese record on human rights is abysmal, to say it mildly. I am not sure that they would give ahoot about the situtation in Darfur.)

Atheist, Noston, USA:

I agree with you on the Chinese government's "misplaced" value system. However, I do not agree with your broad-brush and gratuitous characterization of all Chinese people. (This shows your ignorance, yet again!)

BobL, VA:

Thanks! By the way, in total dollars, we (the U. S.) are the largest exporter of arms.

The reason I feel I must respond publicly to the questions posed by Ignatius and Zakaria is that I was silent while hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in Rwanda. I now know that arms dealers from Belgium (Hutus) and France (Tutsis) were responsible for enraging the participants in that genocide. I now know that the conflicts in many African countries are the result of interference by groups like `the Fellowship.' I urge the national media to name the companies profiting from this latest genocide to burst into our awareness with a flood of blood — Darfur and the Sudan. If we can stop the profit companies and their stockholders are getting from the slaughter of innocents — we can stop genocide forever.

To put the first question in perspective: the convention enshrined by the Treaty of Westphalia – that a government was free to do whatever it wanted as long as it confined itself to its national borders – received its death blow by cluster bombs delivered at 15,000 feet over Kosovo. NATO made it very clear that, in Europe at least, governments were constrained by what their neighbors thought to be appropriate behavior – when those neighbors had the force to bear to drive that point home.

So, given that recent precedent, the answer to this question is: No, regional solidarity should not trump human rights needs. But the operative phrase in that sentence is ‘should not;’ the world in which we live is littered with UN resolutions that have been either ignored or repudiated with impunity. Any UN attempt to order the relations between nations, or to regulate a government’s relations with its people, has always been subject to any member nation’s willingness to consent to that attempt. When a government repudiates a UN resolution it fails, because with very few exceptions, the UN lacks the capability to enforce it.

With this as the frame, the second question can be addressed more broadly: What is to be done? There are, in theory at least, several alternatives:

1) The UN could try an act political jujitsu: since the Arab League protests so strongly against the imposition of a UN force, the UN would then empower the Arab League to enforce the mandate of that resolution. While this might afford a degree of amusement as the individual nations try to squirm out of it – this is all the value that might be added by such a gambit. The Arab League cannot enforce a ceasefire in Darfur. None of these nations are democracies; all of them have restive minorities; and the last thing these autocracies want is to give those minorities a model for a successful revolt – which is what a UN mandate represents (see Bosnia, Kosovo, and Northern Iraq [Kurdistan] after the Gulf War). To give the Arab League nations the benefit of the doubt, they are perhaps uncomfortable with the genocidal tactics the Sudanese government has adopted, but they are more uncomfortable with the possible precedent of a successful revolt against an Arab government.

2) To answer the second question directly, it might be possible to split off Egypt from the Arab League. The gambit here is to convince Mubarek that Egypt, as the dominant power in Saharan Africa, needs to stand up to its responsibilities and take the lead in policing the region. Additionally, the last thing Egypt needs is a festering civil war that might spill over into Egypt. The UN/US/NATO could offer logistic support for an Egyptian expeditionary force to impose a peace on the area Mubarek as a peacemaker might raise his esteem in the world to something approaching that of Sadat – not an insignificant incentive to a man who is looking now to his legacy.

3) The word could be spread to the Arab League that an unnamed nation is considering air-dropping arms and supplies into Darfur to enable the rebels to fight on a more level field (a la Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation). This could be used as a subset of option 2 above to persuade Egypt to act. The downsides of this ploy are immediate: the ‘unnamed nation’ would be quickly identified, with accusations of meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation. More importantly in the long term, this would set a bad precedent if/when a nascent nation like, say, Kurdistan, demands the same kind of support – to the howls of protest by whatever government rules whatever part of Baghdad and some other part of Iraq at that time.

4) NATO could commit to an air campaign to force the Sudanese to back away from its genocidal campaign against Darfur, much as Serbia was dissuaded from its ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. The immediate problems with this option are two-fold. First, NATO is strained to meet its commitments in Lebanon while NATO commanders are screaming for more troops for Afghanistan and second, in the case of Sudan, the Rumsfeld Observation regarding Afghanistan must be honored: Sudan is not a target rich environment . Very little of substance can be accomplished with a Kosovo-style aerial bombardment of Sudan.

5) Finally: Evacuation of all the Darfur natives that want to go. This is the endgame – no intervention, no reinforcement, no support. The logistics of this would only be hindered if the Sudanese government persisted in trying to kill as many Darfur people as possible in the midst of the evacuation; in other words, continue a genocidal policy as opposed to just letting the troublemakers go away. The problem with this is finding a nation (one that does not have a contiguous border with Sudan) to take them in knowing that, with a refugee population this large, it will be very unlikely that it will assimilate – and how is that long-term problem going to be dealt with; and with what kind of UN support?

These are the options as I see them. I’m sure I’ve missed something, but I hope this helps forward the debate…

Athiest,

Holding the Chinese accountable for Sudan is like holding the US accountable for Saudi Arabia actions when it comes to funding terrorists. Just because the Chinese buy 75% of the oil Sudan exports doesn't make the Chinese any more culpable then any other country who trades in the ME. Japan is the 2nd largest importer of Sudanese oil. Should we blame them too? The US imports no Sudanese oil. We don't have to worry if we upset the Sudanese government they'll cut us off. China does. ME countries are more then willing to take our money (non-Muslim countries), but that doesn't they respect any of us. This includes China.

As far as arm sales, pleeeeezzzeee! We all do this. Most industrialized countries sell arms and weapons regularly around the world. The US has sold or given arms to almost every ME country at one time or another. We're re-arming Iraq as we speak in the hopes they stabilize themselves. We've sold or given through foreign aid weapons to Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria. So, to point a finger at China for selling arms for oil doesn't offend anyone (unless a person is just anti arms sales no matter what).

Your point against Chinese Americans, who they are, what they think and how they act was stereotyping, ignorant and bigoted.

Wow - an amazing amount of reflections on this topic. I hope to bring some few things into light.

One should be carefull to condemn sovereignty - that is the right of the state to control its on affairs and territory - as the enemy. Sovereignty is a complicated structure in the international system, and is BOTH an essential part of implementing human right, but can also be an obstacle in protecting human rights.

In my eyes we are in a positive development which can be coined "qualified" sovereignty, where states are responsible not only to their own citizens, but also to a larger world community and within a legal human rights framework. Sadly this development is selective and still based on narrow state interests. The concept therefore lacks legitimacy in many parts of the world.

In relation to the regional dimension of the question (and the problem) one should bare in mind that the Darfur/Sudan conflict interacts with conflicts in the entire region. Entering this zone will therefore be very very complicated the more the mission interferes with regional power-structures.

So to cut down to business. What I fear is that the humanitarian agenda has been hijacked by a larger political project aimed, among others, at a regime-change in Sudan. The humanitarian actions in in a continued struggle to break free of these power-political struggles. The victims are the civilians.

The Oslo Blog - www.akiaby.dk

As China grows in power, you will experience the sickening influence of Chinese values.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060918-1533376,00.html

Most Chinese, not only the Chinese government, value money over human rights. If you are in an American university, you can easily see the truth of what I am saying. The 1st-generation/2nd-generation Chinese-Americans are vastly overrepresented in the engineering/business colleges, yet these Chinese-Americans are substantially underrepresented in meetings of the local chapter of Amnesty International (AI).

I am not, in any way, exaggerating. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Attend a local meeting of AI and notice the absence of Chinese-Americans. They can solve the hardest mathematics problems with ease, but these Chinese-Americans are stumped by basic notions of compassion.

The Chinese enthusiastically support the murderous govenment of the Sudan. The Chinese eagerly sell tons of weapons to the government.

If you are Sudanese, you should hold the Chinese responsible for their actions. I encourage you to wage guerilla-warfare against the Chinese on their own soil. You are fully entitled to kill them for their assisting the Sudanese government. Contact the Korean embassy. The Koreans do plenty of business in China, and most Koreans know the whereabouts of high-profile buildings in mainland China. Do what needs to be done. Show no mercy.

Also, note that the children of senior members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have gone abroad to the West. These children are in their mid 20s and mid 30s and stole millions of dollars from the coffers of CCP. These elite children are commonly referred to as "princelings". They are tainted with Sudanese oil and Sudanese blood. If you are near a Western university, befriend the Chinese and locate the whereabouts of these "princelings". Also, befriend the "princelings". Determine the location of their residences in mainland China. Give their addresses to several of the very angry Muslim groups in the mainland. Leverage the Muslims and use them to kill the Chinese.

If you are bothered by the ruthlessness of these thoughts and acts, I recommend that you look again at the pictures of the Sudanese victims of Chinese blood money. Although China is not a democracy, most Chinese support the government and do not give a damn about the people killed by Chinese indifference to human suffering. Why should you care about these sub-human animals? The Chinese are responsible for the actions of their government.

By the way, 30 years ago, the Chinese singlehandedly funded and armed the Khmer Rouge. Yes. That Khmer Rouge. It massacred 30% of the Cambodian population.

By the way, my comments about the moral bankruptcy of the Chinese also apply to the Chinese on Taiwan. To this very day, the Chinese on Taiwan still insist that Tibet is an integral part of "One China". While mainland Chinese troops rape and kill Tibetans, the Chinese on Taiwan proclaim (via their Constitution) that Tibet is part of China.

When Washington and Tokyo slapped sanctions against Beijing just after the Tienanmen Square incident (in which Chinese soldiers murdered several hundred protesters) in 1989, the Taiwanese seized the opportunity to provide any money and technology that the West denied to Beijing. During the time of these sanctions, Taiwanese investments into China grew at double-digit rates — reaching $100 billion by 1999.

Who is the sub-human animal? You make the call.

If any of you readers give a damn about the Sudanese victims of Chinese blood money, then you can do something. Whenever you buy a product and when you have many choices from which to choose, please prefer the product that is not made in China or Taiwan. Tell the Chinese to go to hell. Also, tell Congress to cancel the Taiwan Relations Act. (More than 1 million Chinese from Taiwan have emigrated to mainland China.) Tell the Chinese from Taiwan to go to hell.

On a final note, look at the pictures of the dead Sudanese children. Look at the tears of the Sudanese mothers. Then, look at the absense of Chinese-Americans in meetings of Amnesty International. Look at the Taiwanese Constitution that proclaims Tibet to be a part of "One China".

Tell these indifferent monsters (and indifference is a monster) to go to hell.

Thank you for every body comments on this site and thank you those who have created this post.

I am Sudanese from South Sudan fleed from Sudan for same thing in Darfur today. Ladies and Genltemen stop keep lying to innocents people in Darfur, that help is coming. I know history of U.N, it is failing institution and full of professianal lairs, killers, and opportunity hunters.

You want stop killing in Darfur, you do not need to look at the shadow of problem, you need to get into the bottom of issues. China and Russia are the bottow of problems. Those professional lairs know what is killing the people in Darfur and did the same thing in South. South Sudan lost 3.5 millions to tell you. In 17 years war from 1955-1972 (1.5million) and from 1983-2003 was 2.0million. That was in South alone. The U.N was existing, it is not formed yesterday. The U.N was told by Sudan government not to help people in South Sudan like what they are doing today, U.N did listen to Bashier in 1998 and every body was watching.

U.N in Rwunda, withdrawed because the five solidiers were killed and left Rwundans to kill themselves(800,000 lives lost) until they are tried of killing themselve, where the rebels took over the country than U.N came in to judge those killers but U.N did not stop them from murdering people.

Please stop lying to poor Sudanese people that U.N bodies are coming to help them. You are just making maddog Bashier get very mad do more killing. The time U.N start talking about sending troopers the Sudan Government stepped up their secuity and targeting intellectual disappearing and mass killing in Dafur.

Pls, tell China and Russia to stop sell weapons to Sudan.
stop buying oil from Sudan. Stop doing business with Sudanese government, but allowing two countries to back stepping in the U.N Security Council, it is not going to be Sudan allow, you have seen in Iran, North Korea and other countries are doing their calculation to do the same thing.

I was in Khartoum for 14 years in painful life, every time U.N pressure Sudan, Sudan government make more killing Southerner Sudaneses.

I believe U.N is club of interest and lairs but not to do the job of protection. U.N love two things, 1 - love to come count how many people are dead. 2 - to judge those killers who they did not stop before happening.

Solidarity "for" Genocide should be allowed? The question is preposterous! The United Nations of the world do not know the answer to the question? "Genocide" has become a word, not a present condition. Would "slaughter" work better I wonder?
I'm beyond words...
Colette Duvall

The United Nation of those I like

My question is whether solidarity with human rights should always unanimously mean that we should pull away support from one end of the conflict. This is indeed a pity that the government of Sudan does not consider itself a member of international community and is so aggressive in endorsing them. This is a great hazard that can lead to even greater accidents in future in international community if UN does not look at the root causes. Why should a UN member consider itself so distant and so ignored by the UN to look at it as an outsider who tries to interfere with its sovereignty? I believe UN needs a great deal of audit in its processes to generate the trust.
If I wear a very pessimistic hat, imagining the government of Sudan as an evil that deserve to go and try to think like the "war on terror" people, still the conducts of UN Security Council do not make sense. If they believe Sudan is supporting the terrorists who kill innocent people and are starving them to death, they can use their plains to bomb some food on Darfur and take some actions against the terrorists.
What to do now to save the people from death while Sudan refuses UN troops? But they are happy with African Union troops and that is the open door. UN can empower AU for delivering the aid and keeping the peace. If I am a hungry man in Darfur, I care about the content of the container. The blue or green color or the name written on them, I do not care!

Jay McGinley, Washington, USA

Gosh Jay, Iím just a little bit confused. You write:
ìAnd questions like this (yours above) continue to distract attention from SOLVING THIS PROBLEM - getting us to stand up! We are not stand up! Instead, we are sitting around our computer screens, sipping our Starbuck's in smug complacency, enjoying playing "State Department," or "UN" in conversations like this.... Doesn't anyone else think of the M word in this context? What we need to do is get off of our butts, and get our bodies, get our "skin in the game!" No?î

You drink Starbuckís? I donít, Iíve always hated coffee. Give me a good cup of tea anytime, even better, a hot cup of real Belgian cocoa. But the question is have YOU gotten off of YOUR butt? Is YOUR skin actually in the game?

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say YOU have had nothing but water pass YOUR sweet lips since 4 July 06, a real hunger strike on behalf of Darfurians. Would YOU say that is YOUR skin in this game? Perhaps, but when you have the power to limit your own risk I would have to say itís a pretty darn thin skin, donít you agree? Now if you would want to do the Buddhist trick and self-immomulate YOURSELF on behalf of Darfur, there is no question but that would be putting YOUR own skin in the game.

You also wrote:
ìI am reminded, to my horror, of All Quiet on the Western Front - of the townspeople fanning the flame so that OTHERS could go get slaughtered in a hopeless WWI.î

So which are YOU, one of those townspeople fanning the flames, or one of the OTHERS being led to the slaughterhouse?

Actually, you need not go back to WWI for an analogy. The Spanish Civil War will do quite nicely. More than a few American idealists found their way to the battlefields in Spain under arms, less came back. Certainly they did put THEIR skins in the game. Hemingway made a good name for himself telling their story. It is worth remembering however, that Franco won the war Ö he was generally trashed as the bad guy in the morality then at play.

Even in the general heat of ìgenocideî it is worth remembering that this Sudanese conflict has its roots as a civil war, and one going on in one way or another for many many years.

I donít think that even Bush is stupid enough to stick our nose into yet another Muslim nationís business. We havenít done very well tamping down the Iraqi civil war with our 130k+ troops, so those who think a 20k UN contingent is going to do the trick in Sudan better rethink their position. If Sudan doesnít buy in then just forget it; it is simply not going to happen.

Dog eat Dog World

I agree with Mr Bashir about the Arab vs non Arab treatment by Arabs. Any moslem who has worked in Saudi Arabia will tell you about non-Arabs being treated lower than Arabs and even than westerners.

Mr Basir mentioned the hama massacre by Ba'thi regime in Syria, but forgot to mention a bigger genocide against Kurds by Ba'thi Iraqi Arab government. In the Kurdish genocide in Iraq the international community and the UN even failed to take any action to stop the Halabja and Anfal genocides. Why?

The Arab partners of Mr Saddam to this day have not appologized for their silence in Kurdish genocide and it is reported that countries like Egypt were destinations for some of the Kurdish children of Anfal genocide to work as prostitutes. Did Egypt express any appology or tried to find those girls? The Darfur tretment of girls and women reminds me of the Iraqi genocide agianst Kurds and the silence of their so called Moslem Arab and non Arab brothers.

The Darfur case is different from Iraqi Kurdish genocide, because the western countries are not providing chemical weapons to Sudan to bomb its citizens. In the case of Kurds, the countries which were the suppliers also share responsibility.

We are still living in "a world of dog eat dog" and I am sure if Western interests were at stake in Sudan, there was some action taken to prevent the bloodshed. But the Darfuri should thank God that the Western companies are not collaborating to give chemicals to bomb them and the UN is at least doing something.

I don't want my son, a US soldier, to go to the Sudan. However. The abhorrent gencidal policies of the Sudanese government deserve our effective opposition. Emphasis on effective.

Lets provide ample and sophisticated arms assistance to the resistance fighters in Darfur and to the southern rebels fighting against the Northern sudanese slave raiders. (You do recall, I hope, that the Sudanese government and army engaged in genocide and taking slaves in the south, as a matter of policy aimed at controlling the south.) With our aid the resistance fighters can partition the country and then we can recognize two additional countries and assist them directly. The oil rich south would no longer be a source of wealth enabling the dictatorship on Khartoum to fund its oppression. A fringe benefit would be frustrating the cynical Chinese support for the Kartoum dictatorship, part of their effort to control access to the oil deposits in southern sudan.

We would be assiting freedom fighters to help themselves. Wouldn't that be refreshing? There would be little anyone could do to effectively block our action. I like that too.

Constant persistance and pressure are necessary on the Sudanese government. We have seen the effect in the past in the Sudan and even in the UN of not accepting no for an answer, so now the UN must continue to put pressure on Sudan to allow peacekeepers in. The rest of the world must also continually voice their support for the UN and disapproval of mistreatment of human rights within the borders of Sudan through communication and divestment. Regional solidarity must not trump human rights needs, but forcing Sudan to comply with the UN or a military invasion or occupation will be counter-productive. We must continue to seek for Sudan to work with those most interested in human rights, and nothing beyond constant pressure as equal powers in the world will bring the end we desire.

human rights transcend arbitrary cartographic boundaries.

I am one of Sudanese refugees who escaped Sudan and luckily found a way out to the United States several years ago. Hereís my take on the recent development of Darfur crisis: First and foremost, I applaud all of you who have taken time to advocate, organize rallies, or share opinions about stopping the genocide in DarfurÖyou guys make the world a better place for all of us.

Last week, I believe, the real battle between the evil and good in the world presented itself, not in the desert of Darfur region, but right here in New York city/inside the United Nations building, where the world leaders (including the president of Sudan Omar Al Basher) came face to face with their opponents to make their case for /against the genocide in Darfur in particular and human right violation in general. To me, that was a defining moment for the world to decide on the case between:

Protecting the Sovereignty of a state V. Protecting Lives of Innocent People.

You know what the final ruling was, donít you? The UN ruling in favor of protecting the sovereignty of states over protecting lives might have come as a surprise to some people, but NOT me. Personally, one of the most important lessons I have learned as a refugee is: Negative positions are more decisive than the positive ones. For example, if one person tells me, ì I donít like youî and the other person said, ì I love/like youî, I would examine to make sure that the intentions of the person who said he/she likes me were accurate. Contrary, I would easily believe the person who said he/she does not like me. It is a negative conclusion, but time-proven! I have learned that the intention of people who take positive position issue may, or may not be sincere and most often not decisive.

Applying the same theory, Arab league, China, Russia, and Sudan governmentís position against the deployment of UN Peacekeeping Forces in Darfur was negative, therefore, decisive. On the other hand, the UN, UK, USís (and the others) position to deploy UN Peacekeeping Forces in Darfur was positive but **NOT** decisive (at least not to the extend of the opposing ënegativeí parties.)
Omar Al Bashir came to New York with one objective: To defend the predators (Janjaweed Militias), defend human right violators, and to defend his oppressive regime in a worldwide forum. I believe he succeeded 100% as he was able to foil the UN proposition 1706 (at least temporarily)Ö. and he was able to deliver his promise to his accomplices that NO UN peacekeeping forces would step foot on Darfur soil, and most importantly, he was also able to prove to the poor Sudanese people that he is the mighty ruler whose word goes not only in Sudan, but also around the world! He returned to Sudan victorious two days ago to celebrate ìmission accomplishedî in Khartoumís central Great Mosque with his NCP party members. If he really did succeed, then who failed? Of course, the poor Darfuri people who were not well represented by the UN, UK, and the US.

When the war broke between the North and South Sudanese, people kept saying it was a religious war between Muslims and Christians. Now the ongoing war in Darfur is between black Muslims and Arab Muslims. How will we call that war? It is a genocide. Therefore, I urge United Nations and USA President George W. Bush to act and see what is going in Sudan's Darfur before they clean away the ethnic people of Darfur.
President Bashier,in his speech said that he will be the first person to pick up the arm if it happens for the UN Peace Keeping forces to land in the soil of Sudan.
I know the international community is working hard to solve all the international problems but the problem of Darfur need a closed attention.
I need UN to Sudan! I need UN Peace Keeping forces in Sudan!

There is to be said that the humanitarian challenges are so many, like e.g World Food Program has to deliver food for more than 2 million people, many of them in camps or in rural areas. Darfur needs peace, and the people assisting the refugees need the possibility to do their work, without violence, harassment, killings. Both the government and the armed groups have seriously attacked the humanitarian community and those who will suffer the most are those 2 million or more, waiting for the international assistance.

There are some 40 plus million people living in Sudan. Just over 70% of them are Muslim. While some differences exist between Arab Muslims and African Muslims with Arabs being a little more equal than African Muslims when push comes to shove they will back each other. The Bashir government wants the non-Muslims out of Sudan and he doesn't care how this is accomplished. Kill them or drive them out it makes no difference to him. His policies and practices have reinforced this premise over and over. 20,000 UN troops will be able to do very little in country this size except report on how bad the situation is.

There really seems to be only 3 viable options. First, do nothing and the killing will continue for those unlucky enough not to be able to leave the country. Second, regime change. However, I doubt any country is up to the task at this time. Third, let the UN and western nations find a way to offer anyone who wants to leave Sudan safe haven in other countries around the world.

Sudan is another example of Islams commitment to peace?

I think the world should exert pressure on Egypt, Saudia Arabia & UAE. These countries have a great deal of influence on the Sudanese govt, not China. The regime in Sudan is ideologically opposed to that of communist China. What connects them is merely economic interests so the Sudanese regime may not listen to them as much as it would to Arab & Islamic nations. The security Council should at least try & impose a no-fly zone over Darfur! If it cant do that then its not taking itself seriously. Countries like the US & Britain should also encourage Sudanese nationals present on their soil to express their views supporting UN troops.

I currently run a think tank on East and Central Africa and live and work in Africa. I would like to draw your attention to two articles that I have published that summarize the position. The URL's are at the end of this post.

My first point and it is the same point made by the UN's SRSG to Sudan Jan Pronk is that the real problem is the non-enforcement of the Darfur Peace Agreement. On 18 September 2006 he outlined a five point program and the final point was to get off the collision course and the confrontational diplomacy used by the United States.
(You will find his speech on the UN Security Council Web site)

As I have written many times the fastest solution to the Darfur humanitarian crisis is to reenforce the AU soldiers build confidence between the signatories of the DPA and between the Government of National Unity and the United Nations. This view was supported by Jan Pronk.

The reason why the AU is underfunded and under resourced is because the countries that promised to support it did not. This includes the USA. President Bush in a meeting with President Kagame earlier this year apologized to President Kagame for being late paying his Rwandan soliders for their mission in Darfur. The AU has gone to NATO numerous times and asked for support and it has either been rejected or miniumum support was provided.

The first priority should be the protection of civilians of Darfur. It is widely known now that most of violence—this was supported by the AU Commission president—is coming from the rebel groups and not the Government of Sudan. The fastest solution is to support the AU presence and rebuild confidence in the DPA. The argument over which color berets is not necessary. Before any UN soliders can arrive the DPA must be in place. This is cardinal rule of ALL and I mean ALL UN missions. If the AU is successful in enforcing the DPA then there will be no need for UN peacekeepers. It is that simple.

My final point is that the US government should be very careful about their confrontational tactics. Do they want Sudan pushed into isolation when there is a growing Islamic State in Somalia. Do they want Sudan pushed back to its position of 10 years ago? I do not think that is in the best interest of the US.

For you who have forgotten history and are calling for the isolation of Sudan, you need to remember that Sudan was isolated for some time by the US with sanction. The US bombed it—wrongly I might add-during the Clinton administration. It did not have any affect. Sudan has extensive trading partners in the Arab/Muslim world and they will not stop trading, especially if the US is behind the action. China will not support these action either because it has said in the Security Council that the confrontational approach is not the correct course.

So there is good reason why President Omar Al Bashir does not trust the UN. He knows there are alternatives. He knows the problem can be solved another way and he wonders why the UN does not take that path.

Anti-UN Sentiment Lighting Rod for African Nationalism
http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/think-piece-anti-un-sentiment-in.html

Darfur Crisis: Shared Responsibility
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17664

William Church Director of the Great Lakes Centre for Strategic Studies

the question can never be put for discussion if UN was effeciantly doing its job. its basic charter includes human rights. and to safeguard human right is the responsibility of all nations and specially those who are the member of security council.

with the passage of time this fundamental right of human beings being camouflaged due political reasons and therefore now state sponsored terrorism is becoming the way of governace in many countries.

if Arab league is sensitive about regional soverignty then it is their resposnibility to keep their house in order and stop atrocities immiditely. they must bring peace to the region with out any delay and open up curtains for all observers.

if they fail to do their job then they have no right to stop any body who want to fill up the gap and want to risk his life to bring the peace in the region.

Ronald Majilakawa,

I agree with you 100%. I'm a Muslim Sudanese and I think that Omar al-Butcher should be ______ (fill in the blank) but hey you get the idea right?

The man didn't just cause the Southerners problems, he did the same to us northerners too (although to a lesser extent). Some of my relatives were executed by him just because they simply opposed him... My nephews, cousins some of them died in the so called "jihad" he forced them to.

Freaking butcher

I totally agree that regional solidarity should be allowed to trump human rights needs,

President, Omar El Basher is a murderer, he should be taken into the court of justice, he killed many people in South Sudan and forced people in South Sudan to join Islam by force or be killed. Omar El Bashire doese not care about human rights and i am sure that he didn't read anything about human rights, he is uneducated man.

My people in South Sudan didn't agree with such stupied acts of Mr Omar El Bashire.

My dad was killed by the Government of Omar El bashire, becuase he was working for the SPLA/SPLM, my dad was ocne of the mosty important figures in the group, but he was shot dead including his bodygurds.

Omar El Bashire doesn't want the Un forces to enter Sudan, becuase he don't want anybody to know all he has done to then people of Sudan speacially people of South Sudan. Omer El Bashire is backed by the Egyption government and all Arabs government to not allow any Europian or Afircan troops to enter Sudan. the call these troops in their slange language as " the Israeli troops". Omar El Bashire is a murderer, racist and should be striped from his posisstion as a President of Sudan.

He used people of South Sudan as a testing area, he tested many bombs in South Sudan and that resulted in the death of 1000s of innocent people.

In Darfur's case i totally stronglly agree that UN forces have to enter Sudan without Sudan's government authority, SPLA/SPLM (GOSS) already agrees with the UN in this decision, therefore if the government of the Sudan doesn't agree then the UN Forces has to enter Sudan with force or with out force. Because peole of Darfur are being hemiliated by it's own government. If u ask anyone in Darfur now, they'd say we don't want Omar as the president of Sudan anymore.

Lots of thanks for allowing me to tell what i wanted to say.

This post explains in a simple way why some Darfurians are against UN troops.

http://www.sudanesethinker.com/2006/09/11/the-reason-darfurians-are-split-over-support-for-un-troops/

Also many people in Khartoum believe that UN troops have sinister intentions (ie. stealing oil, uranium, breaking Sudan up etc.). I know I know retarded right? Well, this is the truth and unfortunately we do have some of those fascist type Muslim groups who are Jihady nuts.

President, Omar El Basher is a murderer, he should be taken into thfe court of justice, he killed many people in South Sudan and forced people in South Sudan to be join Islam by force or be killed.

My people in South Sudan didn't agree with such stupied acts of Mr Omar El Bashire.

My dad was killed by the Government of Omar El bashire, becuase he was working for the SPLA/SPLM, my dad was ocne of the mosty important figures in the group, but he was shot dead including his bodygurds.

Omar El Bashire doesn't want the Un forces to enter Sudan, becuase he don't want anybody to know all he has done to then people of Sudan speacially people of South Sudan. Omer El Bashire is backed by the Egyption government and all Arabs government to not allow any Europian or Afircan troops to enter Sudan. the call these troops in their slange language as " the Israeli troops". Omar El Bashire is a murderer, racist and should be striped from his posisstion as a President of Sudan.

He used people of South Sudan as a testing area, he tested many bombs in South Sudan and that resulted in the death of 1000s of innocent people.

Lots of thanks for allowing me to tell what i wanted to say.

coming in?

you want to explain that?

Drima, Sudan

Hi there, the obvious answer to the first part of the question is a definte NO! On the matter of pulling away support, I think pressure on the Arab League to change their stance would work, especially on countries that are strong US allies. Moreover, I believe the UN conducting a naval blockade might be a good idea too.

Anyways, I have a major issue and problem with this question. I myself am a Sudanese and as much as I am happy that many of you care about the plight of my people, it saddens me to say that many of those who have heard about the conflict in Darfur know very little about the complexity of the situation. The question being asked here is flawed in a major way. It makes it seem as if the opposition is only coming from the Sudanese government. It is not!

1- Darfur is home to many different tribes and a considerable portion of them oppose UN troops. I've made a short post about in
my blog

2- Many Sudanese Islamist groups vowed to wage Jihad against the Sudanese government and against UN troops if consent is given to them to enter Darfur. (Remember that this will cause instability in Khartoum too)

3- Al-Qaeda vowed to wage Jihad if UN troops step in Darfur.

This alone proves that the idea of UN troops will cause some problems. I believe strengthening the AU militarily and financially while discussing a change in their mandate can do the job.

The person that I find myself much in agreement with in regards to the conflict in Darfur and the solution to it is Alex de Waal.

Thank you WP for starting these usefull discussions.

Hi there, the obvious answer to the first part of the question is a definte NO! On the matter of pulling away support, I think pressure on the Arab League to change their stance would work, especially on countries that are strong US allies. Moreover, I believe the UN conducting a naval blockade might be a good idea too.

Anyways, I have a major issue and problem with this question. I myself am a Sudanese and as much as I am happy that many of you care about the plight of my people, it saddens me to say that many of those who have heard about the conflict in Darfur know very little about the complexity of the situation. The question being asked here is flawed in a major way. It makes it seem as if the opposition is only coming from the Sudanese government. It is not!

1- Darfur is home to many different tribes and a considerable portion of them oppose UN troops. I've made a short post about in
my blog

2- Many Sudanese Islamist groups vowed to wage Jihad against the Sudanese government and against UN troops if consent is given to them to enter Darfur. (Remember that this will cause instability in Khartoum too)

3- Al-Qaeda vowed to wage Jihad if UN troops step in Darfur.

This alone proves that the idea of UN troops will cause some problems. I believe strengthening the AU militarily and financially while discussing a change in their mandate can do the job.

The person that I find myself much in agreement with in regards to the conflict in Darfur and the solution to it is Alex de Waal.

Thank you WP for starting these usefull discussions.

By all means, human rights should trump regional solidarity. The lives of millions of people are in our hands, and these victims of terrible violence should be foremost in our minds. Any countries who currently support Sudan, financially or politically, should be put under great pressure to decry the genocide in Darfur and pull their support. If Sudan is shown by its current allies that genocide is not accepted by the world community,the government will be foeced to take action to prevent the genocide in order for their country to survive. The United Nations needs to make clear to any of its members participating in the support of Sudan's corrupt government that they will be denied membership unless their support is withdrawn immediately. This may seem a risky step to take, but it is vital that we stop the genocide before hundreds of thousands more innocent men, women, and children perish.

I think Jason Miller of San Francisco asked an intelligent question: How does the world protect victims when there is no geostrategic or economic reason for doing so? In fact that there are such victims seems to fly in the face of our belief that the world will just rise up through globalization...My belief is that much of what we call the third world—certainly much of the Middle East—will have to in a sense be recolonized by the most developed powers—that the developed powers will have to be relentlessly educating their own citizens toward some type of civil service to literally run the failing states of the world. Of course if there is no geostrategic reason for doing so—or economic or national security reason—we can just let victims be victims,