IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ethnic cleansing , Sudan incidents , Sudan issues , UN incidents , US-Sudan relations

Reply
Old 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 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
aerocontrols is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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.
aerocontrols is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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
aerocontrols is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.