They said "never again" and they are failing to live up to that promise. From the article:
"The Council set a firm deadline of August 30, 2004, for the government to comply, making it absolutely clear that by that date the government must fulfill commitments made to the UN with respect to disarming the Janjaweed militia and apprehending those within the various militias who carried out human rights abuses and violated international humanitarian law.
....The international community has a responsibility to protect innocent people in countries where the government has failed to protect their own population. Therefore, the UN could assembly a peace enforcement force to enter Sudan and restore order. However, since the UN doesn't have a military contingent of its own, it has to rely on its member states to contribute personnel and equipment to such a force. Countries in the African Union should be the first to supply contingents for such a force. But countries like Canada should also be on standby to help."
We need political will to enforce Chapter VII and that means we need to pressure our governments to act. Not an easy task but if you are so inclined (and I beg you) please write a letter to your political leaders. Perhaps we can get some response from the so-called 'international community' by applying a little pressure from below.
I have sent a letter today asking Paul Martin to support this resolution, and then I laughed because I know our military is in such a state that I doubt we would be able to offer any assistance anyway. Cripes!
Can the UN survive through another genocide without crumbling? What is the alternative?
Does anybody give a rat's ass?
Song Du Jour: Sunday Bloody Sunday~ U2
"How long must we sing this song?
How long? How long...
...And it's true we are immune
When fact is fiction and TV reality
And today the millions cry
We eat and drink while tomorrow they die"
8 comments:
Heather,
Weren't you opposed to the last attempt to enforce UN resolutions that weren't adhered to?
- Mustafa
Oh probably, I am a walking contradiction, Mustafa.
But I would like to answer your question Mustafa could you give me the context of the "last attempt".
Thanks.
The first *tape* I ever bought was Under a Blood Red Sky. (at the same time I bought Depeche Mode ~ Some Great Reward)
Sunday Bloody Sunday got me interested in politics and international relations. When I heard it I realized I had to know more about Irish history. I went to the Rutherford Library and spent one whole summer (between grade nine and ten) researching the topic. That was when I knew that I wanted to go to University.
I wonder where I would be if I hadn't heard that song.
"There's been a lot of talk about this next song.
Maybe, maybe too much talk. This song is not a rebel song.
This song is Sunday Bloody Sunday"
Well, I defer to the man who supposedly is of the hour:
"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
"... We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime."
(From Speech by George W. Bush to the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2004. Full text can be found here)
- Mustafa
Ahhahahahaha! That's funny. Just because Bush said it doesn't mean that it is true. The U.S. has never shown much support for the success of the UN. It would undermine too much of the hegemons' power. But that is some dandy rhetoric...
Mustafa, I think you are highlighting that I did not support the invasion of Iraq, but really I did support the UNSC resolution, I just didn't support the U.S. working to fix the problem on its own.
You may find this surprising but I have never said I was against the removal of Saddam Hussein. I just don't care for the way the U.S. forged ahead without waiting for the inspectors to finish. When listening to Clinton on this subject I agree with him; Saddam was a threat and had to be stopped. But, so is Robert Mugabe (IMHO) and so is that crazy loon over in Northern Korea.
I'd probably support any UN action that takes a ruthless dictator out of power and brings more stability to a region. I'm not a pacifist, but I think it has to be done in a way that is legit and I think that should be done through international institutions.
The U.S. acting unilaterally scares the bejeesus out of me. I wish I felt that I could trust that they were doing it for the right reasons, but I don't trust them at all because of power politics, which I despise.
But I am idealistic and not much of a realist in that regard.
I removed that first comment only to fix poor grammar...
I said "the US has showed..."...frick!
Ok. Then I was mistaken about the nuances of your position on the Iraq file.
So do you always believe than action of some sort, either by sanction of by military force, should be used against those who do not adhere to binding UN resolutions?
- Mustafa
Post a Comment