Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The United Nations Continues To Turn A Blind Eye To Darfur

Yid With Lid has a great post up about the U.N. "Human Rights" Council's refusal to condemn the Sudanese government over their continued genocide against the people of Darfur in their latest, in a long line of, toothless resolution. I hear and see people, namely rich, white American celebrities, criticize the Bush administration and the U.S. government time and and time again for not doing enough to help, and all rightly so may I say, but little if anything is said about the U.N.'s handling of the situation. Or lack there of. Isn't this their job?


Anonymous said...

That article also failed to mention that the majority of the people whom are being slaughtered are "Christians". Media oversight? Naw..just media bias and hatred toward anything of Christ and the people whom believe in Christ. Now if the friggin people being slaughtered were in the majority being Muslim; then all hell would brerak loose on the leftist fronts and we would be seeing all kinds of special news documentaries and articles every evening about it. Just like when Kosovo was under siege. But since its just scumbag Christians in a country taken over by force from Muslim criminals..whos going to care?

Unknown said...

Actually John K, I DIDN'T leave out the fact that they were Christians because of bias and hatred toward anything of Christ and people who believe in Christ. If that was true, I wouldn't have written the story at all. BTW the person who put together and sold through the watered down resolution, the Mexican ambassador, who happens to be Christian. These people are getting slaughtered, and in my own way I am trying to get it stopped

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much. I read the wrong article and commented on yours. My appologies.

Unknown said...

The killing in the Darfur region has been going on for years.

It must be remembered that the 'UN security council' is only one of many components of the UN, and it relies on its member nations to supply its forces with troops, something the US seems unwilling to do. Yet when the US has a 'pet project' it wants to pursue, it is able to bully support from other nations: 'You're either with us or against us' etc.
As a self-appointed 'world police' the US is not only choosing which fights to get involved with, it is drawing military support from nations that would otherwise be commiting their troops to the UN.

The UN lacks commitment from some members, and its most vocal critic, the US, isn't helping. The US should stop critising the UN and should think about contributing resources and support, rather than undermining it. It's easy to say the UN did nothing with Iraq, the US blundered in, in direct opposition to UN process, not only making it impossible to get a positive result, but demanding the troops from other nations that could be sorting out Sudan. If the UN seems like water, it's because the US is pissing away the UN's strength in the deserts of Iraq.

So when people criticise the US and not the UN for failure in Sudan, it's because the US has demonstrated the will, and commitment of resources to circumvent/neutralise UN process.
As the single greatest influence over world troop deployment, take it up with dubya!

If the US intends to push the UN out of the way with unilateral action, then they should expect criticism when they fail to act on obvious ongoing slaughter in favour of starting their own in Iraq.

Maybe it's time to mention there is oil in Sudan.

As for media coverage John, if you live somewhere other than America, you would have seen all sorts of articles and doco's

Anonymous said...

Just while we're on the topic of turning a blind eye to things, Chris, have you been turning a blind eye to what's actually going on?

The UN has personnel in Darfur. They're not ignoring it, they've just got their hands tied with a little thing called state-soveriegnty.

Anonymous said...

Murphy; Are you aware that the US provides more than 80% of the entire UN's budget?
"The US should stop critising the UN and should think about contributing resources and support, rather than undermining it."-- RBMurphy

Tough not to be critical when you get nothing for your money but complaining and finger pointing by nations who are not willing to help themselves with resourses, manpower and overall common sense.
When no one there wants to do anything other fingerpoint at the USA like you always do.
I personally feel the UN is worthless and toothless and I'am tired of paying 80% of the bill.
"UN OUT of USA and USA out of the UN." A bumper sticker I have on all of my vehicles plainly says it for me.

Unknown said...

"80% of the entire UN's budget"
that is an interesting number. I'd really like to see a link. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that every other source says 20-22%, which is supposed to be linked to percentage of world wealth (of which the US has 34%, so there is an arguement to be made that the US is screwing the UN). John, on those figures, the US government gives $1 on your behalf, as it's little less than $1 per capita. So you can think of the Iraq blunder as like Dubya knoching over 'can of coke' that you were going to give to the UN.

The US's contempt for the UN does more to waste UN money than just about anything else.
Like the US doing their level-best to disrail UN processes, like the work on Iraq. The UN have always had plans for how to deal with Iraq, but that all amounts to nought when the US says 'It isn't happening how we want it to, we'll just bomb it (again), invade it'.

THIS MAKES PREVIOUS UN OUTLAY IRRELEVANT (ie. your $1 a year), and makes the (impatient) US demand for; and subsequent control of, foriegn troop deployment, makes the UN security council look teethless.

The real significance of all this, is that when 'dubya' then screws it up and has 'to rethink his position'(as though he did some thinking before rushing in), that the UN should be saying 'WE TOLD YOU SO'!
... and hopefully the US will learn that the UN isn't 'toothless', but just had the sense not to blunder into a situation that was:
a) unnecessary at that stage (remember, the Bush admin. cooked-up that WMD-thing, without finding as much as a bad Limberger cheese sandwich)
b)was going to be a real mess, without a clear solution. Maybe if the US had have waited until there was a reason to invade, that UN security council would be on side, and there would a suitable plan, and sufficent support from Europe to enact it.

Anonymous said...

Humm; Could be. But Iraq is not the only situation that the UN has been completly ineffective in dealing with. As far as the money to run the UN; I still remember seeing the total budget outlay for the entire organization as being payed for by the US. The 80% number might be old news but I will try and find the appropiate link.