The Shame Of The UN
When it comes to condemning Israel, the UN generally pulls out all the stops and gets resolutions passed in record time. When it comes to halting genocide by Islamist militias in the Sudan, however, if they get around to anything at all, they give the Islamist Sudanese government veto power and allow the genocide to continue.
In the face of ongoing genocide in Darfur, the international community's failure to accept the "responsibility to protect" (that's United Nations language, officially adopted) innocent civilian lives has taken its last, abject form. The National Islamic Front (NIF) regime in Khartoum, made up of the very men who have for more than three years orchestrated the systematic destruction of Darfur's African tribal populations, has been told directly and unambiguously that there will be no U.N. peacemaking force without its consent.
In the revealing words of British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, Khartoum's agreement to U.N. deployment "is quite crucial" to taking any meaningful action. Jones Parry's words have been repeated explicitly by U.N. and U.S. officials, as well as officials of other countries possessing the military resources that are the only possible source of protection for approximately 4 million people in Darfur and eastern Chad — people whom the United Nations describes as "conflict-affected" and in growing need of humanitarian assistance.
In short, the international community has conferred upon the genocidaires the power to veto deployment of the very force that might halt an accelerating slide toward catastrophic human destruction.
Given present trends (Khartoum has launched a major military offensive in northern Darfur) and the woeful inadequacy of the present African Union monitoring force — and presuming no intervention to protect civilians or the humanitarian efforts upon which they depend — mortality in Darfur over the next year could exceed the present death toll of about half a million human beings, some 10,000 people a week.
Can those who support the UN actually look themselves in the eye? Much wailing and gnashing of teeth occurs if Israel kills one person unintentionally. Not one word in spoken when 10,000 a week are killed in Sudan quite intentionally indeed. This is the shame the UN brings on itself.
UPDATE: Donald Sensing isn't exactly thrilled with Kofi Annan's UN, either. Unfortunately, even when the corrupt and anti-semitic Annan leaves office, things may not improve. Reader_I_am from Done With Mirrors sees the enabling going on.
World news | Gaius Saturday, 2 September , 2006
By Raphael, Saturday, 2 September , 2006 @ 8:24 pm
When it comes to asking for money, they have no problem pulling out the G card.
By probligo, Saturday, 2 September , 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Two things come out of this, and neither are directly Annan’s fault.
First, the UN was established on the basis that it would not could not interfere in the internal affairs of any sovereign nation. Would any of you, for example, have welcomed the UNHCR telling the US back in the 1950’s that the racial discrimination practices in the southern States were an affront to human rights? Of course not!
The second thing is authority. The US has its own particular structures and processes for the making of law and putting government policy into effect. Does that give GWB the power to “make law”? No of course it does not. Have a think about the “powers” that Annan has.
He has a lot to answer for in terms of the administration of the UN, and some of the things that have happened inside of the UN. That is where his primary responsibilities and all of his authority lies.
To blame him personally for Dafur is, in my opinion, quite ingenuous. The power to deal with Dafur lies with the members of the Club. In that respect, Dafur is the result of the unwillingness of the members of the UNSC, and in particular China (and the main opposition comes from China), Russia and US, to come to agreement on what should be done for Sudan as a whole.
Answer this question honestly - what is it that you think Annan should have done, and how should he have achieved it?