Darfur-The World's Shame.

[culbair]

In excess of 400,000 Darfurians have been murdered. 2.5-3 million people have been dislocated.This is a state sponsored genocide perpetrated by the Northern Arab elite -in power- in Sudan. The Janjaweed ( Arab militia) backed by its Arab masters has engaged in a massive campaign of murder rape and pillage. Thousands of women -both young and old- have been raped. Young children have been thrown into fires and burned to a cinder.
Largely the world stands idly by.
In the US a huge 'Save Darfur' campaign has developed. Placards have appeared saying 'Out of Iraq into Darfur'.
Some companies such as Siemens AG and Rolls-Royce, have already cut their ties to Sudan. Ten states including Oregon, California Vermont, Illinois, Connecticut and Maine – have passed resolutions divesting state funds.It is expected that another 10-15 states will follow. Universities, such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale and the University of California system, have also passed divestment measures.
The US and British Governments have made a somewhat half hearted effort to tackle the Butchers of Khartoum. However their efforts are not sufficient.
What has the EU or Irish Government done about Darfur?
It is time for EU governments including the Irish Government to get off the fence. Shame on the EU. Shame on Russia and China. Shame on Arab states.
Extreme pressure must be exerted on China and Russia to withdraw support from the mass murderers of Khartoum. China has blocked decisive action by the UN.
Western countries should threaten the 2008 Beijing Olympics if China continues to obstruct decisive UN action.
Assets of senior government officials in Khartoum must be frozen
These leaders must face trial at the International Court of Justice.
It is time to send a much larger international peace keeping force.

[drbob1972]

sadly and somewhat cynically i believe Darfurs biggest problem is that it doesn't contain any strategic assets or value, if it was oil rich or had was strategic location (something like the Suez canal) then you can bet your Ase the developed world would get involved, somewhat cynical of me i know but i reckon I'm not to far wrong ;(

[culbair]

[color=darkblue]Organizations campaigning on Darfur include:[/color]
http://www.savedarfur.org
http://www.genocideintervention.net
http://www.sudandivestment.net
http://www.wagingpeace.info
http://www.darfuraustralia.org
http://www.protectdarfur.org
http://www.concern.net
http://trocaire.org
http://www.goal.ie

http://www.amnesty.org
http://www.msf.org
http://www.refugee-rights.org
http://www.crisisgroup.org
http://www.hrw.org
http://www.savedarfurcanada.org

[CookieMonster]

Indeed the situation in Darfur is awful. I think the most distressing aspect is that I can't see how the situation can be solved. It can be alleviated, sure, but I don't think it can be solved.
That's not to say we shouldn't try.

[St Disibod]

Extreme pressure must be exerted on China and Russia to withdraw support from the mass murderers of Khartoum. China has blocked decisive action by the UN.
Western countries should threaten the 2008 Beijing Olympics if China continues to obstruct decisive UN action.

I think there is an underwriting cause for the inaction on Darfur and I do not think all the blame lies at the feet of China and Russia.

Oil is an issue, and granted China and Russia are customers; but then wouldn't one expect them to lay down their resistence to UN action if they were guaranteed similar oil streams at similar prices? Even if the impact of cutting off Sudan's oil was spread equally, China and Russia would probably come on board. The problem is an embargo on Sudanese oil hits China and Russia, and leaves the US unscathed.

I don't think it is a leap into paranoid delusion to say that Darfur is being used as a proxy battleground between major world powers, that it's not just callous Chinese and Russian foreign policy prolonging the conflict. The conflict is also being prolonged because it is fanning the flames of a soft-power conquest of Western hearts and minds- we are being made to see China and Russia as the international boogeymen and our own states as contrasts of virtue and humanitarian concern. The US is not directly responsible for what is happening in Darfur, but I do think it is within their power to end it in a manner that would be fair and acceptable to China and Russia. The reality is that it (the conflict) serves US interests just as Sudanese oil serves China's and Russia's. And so progress slows to a still.

Of course there are issues of internal concern. Jeffrey Sachs points towards poverty and a water shortage as chief culprits in Darfur's woes, while Bernard-Henri Levy suggests that it is part of a wider conflict- that between moderate and radical Islam.

[strauss]

In fairness the IAWM were out protesting about it today. Oh no wait - they were doing this instead.

[Meursault]

Agree that the sitituation in Darfur is appaling but is it not true that part of the reason why there has been no intervention is that country's such as China, India etc needing natural resources to continue to expand. Beyond the pale country's such as Sudan allow these to gather much of the energy and raw materials that they need to feed this growth without musceling in on country's that act as supliers to the west. Thus delaying any clash over resources between the established powers and the emerging economy's?

[Rocky]

Extreme pressure must be exerted on China and Russia to withdraw support from the mass murderers of Khartoum. China has blocked decisive action by the UN.
Western countries should threaten the 2008 Beijing Olympics if China continues to obstruct decisive UN action.

I think there is an underwriting cause for the inaction on Darfur and I do not think all the blame lies at the feet of China and Russia.

Oil is an issue, and granted China and Russia are customers; but then wouldn't one expect them to lay down their resistence to UN action if they were guaranteed similar oil streams at similar prices? Even if the impact of cutting off Sudan's oil was spread equally, China and Russia would probably come on board. The problem is an embargo on Sudanese oil hits China and Russia, and leaves the US unscathed.

I don't think it is a leap into paranoid delusion to say that Darfur is being used as a proxy battleground between major world powers, that it's not just callous Chinese and Russian foreign policy prolonging the conflict. The conflict is also being prolonged because it is fanning the flames of a soft-power conquest of Western hearts and minds- we are being made to see China and Russia as the international boogeymen and our own states as contrasts of virtue and humanitarian concern. The US is not directly responsible for what is happening in Darfur, but I do think it is within their power to end it in a manner that would be fair and acceptable to China and Russia. The reality is that it (the conflict) serves US interests just as Sudanese oil serves China's and Russia's. And so progress slows to a still.

Of course there are issues of internal concern. Jeffrey Sachs points towards poverty and a water shortage as chief culprits in Darfur's woes, while Bernard-Henri Levy suggests that it is part of a wider conflict- that between moderate and radical Islam.

The big problem in your theory is if the US was to do want you claim they should, then they could very very easily play themselves off as contrasts off virtue and it would make China and Russia look even worse in comparison. I don’t think it’s that easy to solve the problem, China for example are very strong allies of Sudan and I would be very surprised if they agreed to abandon them that easily and I think that’s a fairly unrealistic action for the US to take, but it would allowed them to put themselves off in a very positive light.

However Sudan have agreed to let 19,000 UN troops into Sudan after the US announced more sanctions and threaten to announce more, so there is hope that something might happen now, although I wouldn't be surprised if Sudan continues to keep trying to delay the troops being deployed.

[culbair]

[color=darkblue][size=7]Challenge China: [/size][/color]
See: http://www.dreamfordarfur.org/

[St Disibod]

The big problem in your theory is if the US was to do want you claim they should, then they could very very easily play themselves off as contrasts off virtue and it would make China and Russia look even worse in comparison.

My point was that the US were gaining from prolonging the conflict while looking like they were trying to sort it. US sources constantly tried to keep the focus on China, while some UK diplomatic sources suggested to the BBC the Chinese were not actually blocking talks- at least not as much as the Russians were.

China does care about its reputation, especially with the Olympics coming. It does not want to be seen too near the Darfur situation and they are even backing away from Mugabe- a closer and similarly shameful ally of theirs: but they're hardly alone in that, just read up on Mubarak's Egypt.

China were never an insurmountable problem on the Darfur issue, but they were played up as such by certain sources (I think culbair is proving my point). Don't get me wrong, China is not all sweetness and light. What they do to their own people in certain instances is really quite horrifying. But that is another issue.