Sudan resolution debated

aerocontrols · 9th July 2004, 04:02 AM

Quote:

France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.
The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs.

The US also hinted that the sanctions could be extended to the government.

Meanwhile, African leaders have urged Khartoum to stop bombing Darfur and say their proposed 300-strong force will have a mandate to protect civilians.

...

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said.

Human rights activists say the Janjaweed are conducting a genocide against Darfur's black African population.

Those who have fled their homes say the Janjaweed ride on horses and camels into villages which have just been bombed by government aircraft, killing the men and raping the women.

...

The US is taking the hardest (in a world of marshmallows, a gumdrop is the toughest, I suppose) line against the genocide, which is that it wants to give the Sudanese 30 more days in which to put an end to the violence before stepping up sanctions. France apparently thinks even this is too much to ask. Judging by the bolded portion above, I think the French line on the issue is that in order for genocide to be taking place, the killings would have to be difficult to accomplish or something. Or perhaps that it can't be genocide or ethnic cleansing, because there is also a war.

I emphasise the portion above in red merely because I want to point out that in the original version of the BBC article it was written thusly:

Quote:

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq, and as in Iraq the US also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

which was, of course, flat-out wrong on the facts, but correct as far as the BBC line on US foreign policy goes. Folks complained to the BBC and the line next became

Quote:

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

"IT" would be F*cking France! The BBC took more criticism for its willingness to (falsely) name the US explicitly, but be less-than-explicit when indicating France's oil interest, so it changed the text yet again to the version you see in the large quote above. The third time is a charm apparently. (Assuming I didn't miss one or more other intermediate changes)

The article doesn't indicate these changes, since they both happened after the BBC's claimed time stamp

Quote:

Last Updated: Thursday, 8 July, 2004, 16:34 GMT 17:34 UK

Grammatron · 9th July 2004, 10:06 AM

Do sanctions really help in these situations; I understand they do quite a bit of damage to the economy, but do they have enough of an impact to stop genocide and force the government or warlords to back off?

Jocko · 9th July 2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
Do sanctions really help in these situations; I understand they do quite a bit of damage to the economy, but do they have enough of an impact to stop genocide and force the government or warlords to back off?

Only if it means a machete embargo.

I guess it does have the virtue of letting them know that they're under scrutiny, but I have no idea if there's any kind of meaningful central command to intimidate. Odds are it will amount to nothing, though if France has its way it won't even be that.

I'm just waiting for someone to parrot the old "Why Iraq when there are so many trouble spots in the world today?" line. Here's their friggin' answer.

Richard G · 9th July 2004, 10:25 AM

Nothing stops genocid quicker than arming the people who are being killed.

The goverment is disarming everyone though, leaving helpless victims.

aerocontrols · 9th July 2004, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
Do sanctions really help in these situations; I understand they do quite a bit of damage to the economy, but do they have enough of an impact to stop genocide and force the government or warlords to back off?

They (Sudan) came to the table and signed a peace agreement in the south because of 2 years of US sanctions and threats of UN sanctions.

So yeah, they worked.

I would still prefer that we sent in troops, but then, I usually do.

aerocontrols · 9th July 2004, 10:46 AM

I should say that the real reason that the US wants to put sanctions on Sudan is that doing so would cut off the oil supply out of Sudan to China and France. When this occurs, both China and France are likely to find common cause with those of us who want to end the ethnic cleansing, because that will be the only way to get the oil flowing again.

If we can motivate China and France, then they can motivate Sudan.

MattJ

9th July 2004, 04:02 AM	#1
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,444	Sudan resolution debated France opposes UN Sudan sanctions Quote: France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur. The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs. The US also hinted that the sanctions could be extended to the government. Meanwhile, African leaders have urged Khartoum to stop bombing Darfur and say their proposed 300-strong force will have a mandate to protect civilians. ... France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan. Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur. "I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said. Human rights activists say the Janjaweed are conducting a genocide against Darfur's black African population. Those who have fled their homes say the Janjaweed ride on horses and camels into villages which have just been bombed by government aircraft, killing the men and raping the women. ... The US is taking the hardest (in a world of marshmallows, a gumdrop is the toughest, I suppose) line against the genocide, which is that it wants to give the Sudanese 30 more days in which to put an end to the violence before stepping up sanctions. France apparently thinks even this is too much to ask. Judging by the bolded portion above, I think the French line on the issue is that in order for genocide to be taking place, the killings would have to be difficult to accomplish or something. Or perhaps that it can't be genocide or ethnic cleansing, because there is also a war. I emphasise the portion above in red merely because I want to point out that in the original version of the BBC article it was written thusly: Quote: France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq, and as in Iraq the US also has significant oil interests in Sudan. which was, of course, flat-out wrong on the facts, but correct as far as the BBC line on US foreign policy goes. Folks complained to the BBC and the line next became Quote: France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan. "IT" would be Fcking France! The BBC took more criticism for its willingness to (falsely) name the US explicitly, but be less-than-explicit when indicating France's oil interest, so it changed the text yet again to the version you see in the large quote above. The third time is a charm apparently. (Assuming I didn't miss one or more other intermediate changes) The article doesn't indicate these changes, since they both happened after* the BBC's claimed time stamp Quote: Last Updated: Thursday, 8 July, 2004, 16:34 GMT 17:34 UK

9th July 2004, 10:06 AM	#2
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,444	Do sanctions really help in these situations; I understand they do quite a bit of damage to the economy, but do they have enough of an impact to stop genocide and force the government or warlords to back off?
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,444

9th July 2004, 10:20 AM	#3
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,467	Quote: Originally posted by Grammatron Do sanctions really help in these situations; I understand they do quite a bit of damage to the economy, but do they have enough of an impact to stop genocide and force the government or warlords to back off? Only if it means a machete embargo. I guess it does have the virtue of letting them know that they're under scrutiny, but I have no idea if there's any kind of meaningful central command to intimidate. Odds are it will amount to nothing, though if France has its way it won't even be that. I'm just waiting for someone to parrot the old "Why Iraq when there are so many trouble spots in the world today?" line. Here's their friggin' answer.
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,467

9th July 2004, 10:25 AM	#4
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940	Nothing stops genocid quicker than arming the people who are being killed. The goverment is disarming everyone though, leaving helpless victims.
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940

9th July 2004, 10:28 AM	#5
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,444	Quote: Originally posted by Grammatron Do sanctions really help in these situations; I understand they do quite a bit of damage to the economy, but do they have enough of an impact to stop genocide and force the government or warlords to back off? They (Sudan) came to the table and signed a peace agreement in the south because of 2 years of US sanctions and threats of UN sanctions. So yeah, they worked. I would still prefer that we sent in troops, but then, I usually do.

9th July 2004, 10:46 AM	#6
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,444	I should say that the real reason that the US wants to put sanctions on Sudan is that doing so would cut off the oil supply out of Sudan to China and France. When this occurs, both China and France are likely to find common cause with those of us who want to end the ethnic cleansing, because that will be the only way to get the oil flowing again. If we can motivate China and France, then they can motivate Sudan. MattJ