PDA

View Full Version : Sudan says UN clears government of genocide



Samurai Jane
01-31-2005, 06:37 PM
Sudan says U.N. clears gov't of genocide

By DANIEL BALINT-KURTI
Associated Press Writer

ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) -- Sudan said Monday that U.N. investigators concluded that genocide was not committed in the country's western Darfur region during a nearly two-year crisis, and the government and rebels committed to reopening peace talks within weeks.

At U.N. headquarters in New York, diplomats confirmed that the report did not find that Sudan committed genocide, but they said it was very critical of Sudanese government actions. The report was expected to be circulated in New York on Tuesday.

The United States has accused Sudan's government of directing militia fighters who attack civilians in what Washington calls a genocidal campaign in Darfur, where a nearly two-year crisis has left tens of thousands of civilians dead.

U.N. investigators have written a report on the allegations, which Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said undermines the U.S. genocide claims.

Advertisement







"We have a copy of that report and they didn't say that there is a genocide," Osman said on the sidelines of an African Union summit in the Nigerian capital, Abuja.

Diplomats at the U.N. headquarters in New York confirmed the report did not find that Sudan had committed genocide, but they said the conclusions were very critical of the Sudanese actions. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity.

But a top negotiator for the rebel Sudanese Liberation Army said Monday: "If genocide means killing systematically people in one area, then there is genocide.

"For us, there is a genocide. Nobody can argue about it," Abakar Mohamed Abu el-Bashar said by telephone from London.



Latest News from Sudan
Sudan says U.N. clears gov't of genocide
Sudan: U.N. clears gov't of genocide

Sudan govt, rebels to reopen peace talks

Sudan tribesman says 25 dead in rioting

Former rebel movement opens Sudan office








Meanwhile, the Sudanese government and Darfur insurgents said they will relaunch peace talks in Abuja in February, raising hopes for a negotiated end to the conflict that three earlier peace conferences and a cease-fire agreement have failed to calm.

Sudan's Darfur tumbled into war when rebels took up arms in February 2003.

The most recent Darfur peace conference began Dec. 11 in Abuja, but rebels boycotted meetings with government delegates two days later, alleging a new government offensive. The talks broke down entirely within weeks.

Darfur's smaller insurgent group, the Justice and Equality Movement, said Monday it would attend the talks if AU negotiators it says have treated them unfairly are "serious and objective," said Khalil Ibrahim Mohammed, a top rebel official.

Mohammed also said the insurgents' leadership wanted other intermediaries to join the talks, which have previously been held by the AU.

"We are asking for a new kind of mediator. America and the European Union must come forward," he said by phone from Eritrea.

The government and the SLA both said their negotiators would return to Abuja for further talks. A Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity the conference was scheduled for the third week of February.

On Sunday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the Security Council should continue to consider sanctions against Sudan over violence in Darfur, although council deliberations have stalled due to divisions among members.

"The council itself has considered sanctions and had not been able to move forward because of divisions. I believe that sanctions should still be on the table," Annan said.

Annan, attending the African summit, said he had received the U.N. commission's genocide report and will forward the study to council members "very shortly."

"Serious violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations of human rights have taken place. This cannot be allowed," Annan said.

The United States - one of five permanent Security Council members - has spearheaded an effort to punish those responsible for abuses in Darfur.

Other nations, though, have questioned whether sanctions are the best way to improve the situation for Darfur's people, who have suffered continued attacks in recent days.

One of the most serious violations of the April cease-fire came just last week when, according to AU observers at the scene, the Sudanese air force bombed a Darfur village, killing or wounding nearly 100 people.

Sudanese officials said the reports were unfounded, but European Union foreign ministers condemned the attacks Monday and called on both sides to resume peace talks.

The Darfur conflict began when the rebels took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin.

The government is accused of responding with a counterinsurgency campaign in which an Arab militia, known as the Janjaweed, committed wide-scale abuses against the African population. An estimated 1.8 million people have been displaced in the conflict.

Hardships including disease and malnutrition are believed to have killed more than 70,000 of Darfur's displaced people, but many more have died in fighting.

---
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SUDAN_DARFUR?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

__

Sorry if this has been posted already.

Clandestino
01-31-2005, 06:47 PM
what next? the UN is going to clear Slobodan Milosevic, Saddamm and Hitler!

Yonivore
01-31-2005, 10:44 PM
what next? the UN is going to clear Slobodan Milosevic, Saddamm and Hitler!
They've pretty much already cleared Hitler and Saddam...they're working on Milosevic's freedom now.

ChumpDumper
01-31-2005, 10:57 PM
Is the US calling it genocide?

Yonivore
01-31-2005, 11:03 PM
Is the US calling it genocide?
I believe our State Department has called it genocide.

ChumpDumper
01-31-2005, 11:30 PM
Does that obligate us to do anything like it does the UN?

Not defending the UN, but it's not like we're doing anything about it either.

Yonivore
01-31-2005, 11:51 PM
Does that obligate us to do anything like it does the UN?

Not defending the UN, but it's not like we're doing anything about it either.
Well, gee, we're kinda busy at the moment...let France or Germany handle it.

travis2
02-01-2005, 07:59 AM
I would agree that something needs to be done...so make a suggestion.

Keep in mind, however, that military action is pretty much out of the question. Besides the logistical nightmare (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan?), the uproar over "another invasion of a sovereign country" will be deafening.

Monetary aid? Sorry, don't have much of that either. The hue and cry over the current bill for Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much settles that question.

So what's left? Any ideas?

MannyIsGod
02-01-2005, 01:48 PM
It's a fucking arguement over what genocide is. The Sudanese government has obviously been helping these militias in their actions.

There's not a country out there with the military resources to intervene. There also isn't a way to pave action.

Yoni can compain about the UN all he wants, but the truth is that when the US disregards the UN in situations such as Iraq and Israel, it makes it a much weaker organization. There is no way the UN is going to be able to do anything of meaning in any world situation that develops in the near futures if ever again.

As far as what we can do? We're not going to do anything. Congress may continue to pay it enough mind to satisfy the few groups lobbying congress to do something, but the general public would be hardpressed to find Sudan on a map. There are no vital US interests at stake, so I don't see any US involvement of note at any time.

This one is going to rest on the African countries. I still don't think that they are going to do the right things, but maybe Rawanda taught that continent a lesson.

travis2
02-01-2005, 01:52 PM
Yoni can compain about the UN all he wants, but the truth is that when the US disregards the UN in situations such as Iraq and Israel, it makes it a much weaker organization. There is no way the UN is going to be able to do anything of meaning in any world situation that develops in the near futures if ever again.

The UN hasn't been anything but a corrupt swamp of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism for years. The Iraq campaign highlighted the weakness of the institution, not caused it.

MannyIsGod
02-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Travis, my point being that the UN was doomed to fail the moment the US (along with other countries) began to pick and choose when it would deem the UN relivent or useless.

How well would a criminal system work if people are able to pickand choose when they want to follow the rules?

travis2
02-01-2005, 01:57 PM
Travis, my point being that the UN was doomed to fail the moment the US (along with other countries) began to pick and choose when it would deem the UN relivent or useless.

How well would a criminal system work if people are able to pickand choose when they want to follow the rules?

Actually your logic in this particular case is sound...but its application is wrong.

The UN picked and chose which rules they wanted to follow. They doomed themselves.

MannyIsGod
02-01-2005, 02:00 PM
Really? So the US ignoring resolutions on Israel isn't the same behavior?

Travis, I don't disagree that the UN was/is a corrupt organization, but I do think that US actions have contributed to this.

travis2
02-01-2005, 02:02 PM
Really? So the US ignoring resolutions on Israel isn't the same behavior?

Travis, I don't disagree that the UN was/is a corrupt organization, but I do think that US actions have contributed to this.

Specifically which resolutions are you talking about?

MannyIsGod
02-01-2005, 02:15 PM
There are more Travis, but these are all very long standing, and are all being violated...



Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.

Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967



Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."



Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.

Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979



"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."



Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.

General Assembly Resolution 3236, November 22, 1974



Affirms "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to self-determination without external interference" and "to national independence and sovereignty."


Yet, which country is the larget reciever of US forgien aid (mostly military)?

travis2
02-01-2005, 02:21 PM
There are more Travis, but these are all very long standing, and are all being violated...



Yet, which country is the larget reciever of US forgien aid (mostly military)?

The problem, Manny, is that Israel itself was created through the UN...and the UN does nothing to help Israel fight off the people who have been attacking Israel since day one. Once again...nobody ever wants to admit that.

Do you know how wide Israel is at its narrowest point? 10 miles. Its widest is (I think) about 70 miles. And the Israeli people have no where to fall back to...except the Mediterranean.

When you have hostile countries on three sides lobbing mortars and sending tanks and causing all sorts of mayhem...what would you suggest?

Seriously...what would you suggest?

MannyIsGod
02-01-2005, 02:26 PM
well, you've gone completely off my point that US action has contributed to the demise of the UN's authority.

I gave you examples of how that happend, and you're starting to take the thread in an entirely new direction. The Israel situation has been argued several times in threads here, I'm not interested in start another at the moment.

travis2
02-01-2005, 02:30 PM
well, you've gone completely off my point that US action has contributed to the demise of the UN's authority.

I gave you examples of how that happend, and you're starting to take the thread in an entirely new direction. The Israel situation has been argued several times in threads here, I'm not interested in start another at the moment.

No, you seemed to be blaming the US for the demise of the UN.

I don't disagree that (at least lately) the US hasn't done anything to stop the free-fall, and certainly in a few cases has ignored the UN when it was obvious that the UN had no intention of following it's own "rules".

But I disagree completely that the US caused anything.

And my point for taking the argument in that direction was to show the UN has been screwing up by the numbers for years without any help from the US.

MannyIsGod
02-01-2005, 02:52 PM
my god Travis. I come out and say exactly what I'm trying to say, and you STILL want to say that I'm saying more than that.


my point that US action has contributed to the demise of the UN's authority.


Travis, I don't disagree that the UN was/is a corrupt organization, but I do think that US actions have contributed to this.

Now, I can't stop you from reading what you want out of my posts, but I think I'm making it pretty damn clear that I am not blaming the US for the demise of the UN, but rather contributing to it.

How am I ever supposed to get a point across if even when I type it plain as hell, people interpret what the want from it?

travis2
02-01-2005, 02:55 PM
my god Travis. I come out and say exactly what I'm trying to say, and you STILL want to say that I'm saying more than that.





Now, I can't stop you from reading what you want out of my posts, but I think I'm making it pretty damn clear that I am not blaming the US for the demise of the UN, but rather contributing to it.

How am I ever supposed to get a point across if even when I type it plain as hell, people interpret what the want from it?

Well, I thought your words were equivocal on that point. If that's not what you're saying, then my apologies.

I am trying to keep this a discussion...there's no need to yell. If you're interpreting it otherwise, well then I'm sorry there too...but that's what I'm doing.

MannyIsGod
02-01-2005, 03:12 PM
I think we agree, on the point I was trying to make.

Clandestino
02-01-2005, 04:23 PM
the un is one step above worthless...