You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
Genocide out of control yet still the UN refuses to act
2004-11-18
Key points

• 35,000 die since UN first warned Sudanese government over its genocidal policy
• Situation in Darfur 'spiralling out of control'
• Critics say UN has failed to grasp urgency of situation in Darfur

Key quote
"Unless the Security Council backs up its earlier ultimatums with strong action, ethnic cleansing in Darfur will be consolidated. And hundreds of UN personnel will be on the ground helplessly watching as it happens." - Peter Takirambudde of Human Rights Watch's Africa division
THE price of the United Nations' procrastination over the genocide in Sudan is revealed today in stark human terms: 35,000 further deaths since the UN Security Council first warned Khartoum to clean up its act. As the 15-strong Security Council meets in special session in Nairobi today to debate Sudan, the crisis in Darfur is worse than on 30 July when the first resolution was approved by 13 votes to nil. Every five minutes, another person dies. UN staff say the Khartoum government's armed forces have continued to attack their own people. Refugees have been beaten while UN workers stand by helplessly. Women and children have been gunned down in Darfur's marketplaces. The world's worst current humanitarian crisis is getting worse.

The death toll has been notoriously difficult to tally, thanks, in large part, to the obstructiveness of the Sudanese government. A figure of 70,000 deaths has been mooted, but aid workers say that simply accounts for deaths as a result of military action. Yesterday, the British aid agency Save the Children took the plunge: its spokesman, Paul Hetherington, estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 people had died since the start of the Darfur conflict. According to the UN's World Food Programme, about 10,000 people are dying every month.
  • Since 13 May, when Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, wrote to Omer al-Bashir, Sudan's president, urging him to disarm the Janjaweed militias, maintain the ceasefire, improve access for humanitarian workers and negotiate a settlement to the conflict in Darfur, 61,500 have died.

  • Since 30 June, when Mr Annan arrived in Khartoum for the start of a three-day visit to see for himself the extent of the crisis, 46,000 people have died.

  • Since 30 July, when the UN Security Council voted to take action against Sudan if it did not make progress on the pledges it had made to relieve the situation in Darfur, 36,000 people have died.

  • Since 6 October, when Tony Blair stopped off in Khartoum and confidently announced he had secured a pledge from the Sudanese government to clean up its act and accept a five-point plan for action, including a force of several thousand African Union troops, 14,000 people have died.
There's more..
Where are you on this genocide, Mr Kofi Annan? Counting your oil-for-food profits?
Posted by:Mark Espinola

#14  
Re #10 (BillH): As for Kofi he hasn't been tied directly to the Oil for food scandel yet, but give it time.

He's "tied" to the Oil-for-Food scandal in the sense that it was a program managed by the UN, and he was the General Secretary.

There's no evidence at all that he profited personally or that any of his decisions were motivated by personal profit.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-11-18 9:43:39 PM  

#13  
Re #6 (Jules): I think it's important to start the discussion about whether Kofi is a worthy head of an organization by reminding ourselves what the purpose of the UN is; then people can analyze his actions/inactions/words/silences in the context of his role there.

I don't agree with you that that's the best way to start the discussion, but OK, let's start it your way.

Kofi Annan is the UN General Secretary. His main responsibilities are to implement the decisions of the Security Council and to manage the UN's administration.

What decisions of the Security Council do you think he hasn't implemented? Have any members of the Security Council complained about his performance of that mission? To my knowledge, none have.

In particular, with regard to this posted article, the Security Council simply warned Sudan to begin correcting the problems in Darfur.

What's your complaint about his management of the UN's administration? Conservative US Senator Jesse Hemls was so pleased with Kofi Annan's improvements in that area that he arranged for the US Congress to pay up all its dues, which Senator Helms had blocked for many years.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-11-18 9:37:14 PM  

#12  The NEA.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-18 8:39:41 PM  

#11  ...UN has failed to grasp urgency of situation in Darfur

Bzzzzt! Wrong! The UN knows exactly what's going on. Anyone who gives the UN ANY credibility is is beyong hope. I honestly think there isn't a more corrupt human organization on the face of the earth.
Posted by: Xbalanke   2004-11-18 8:28:47 PM  

#10  An organization that allows a dictator to sift 22 billion dollars from the oil for food program, allows countries such as Sudan (who this article is about)and Cuba, and who's primary actions to a crisis is inaction has worse problems then just structural weaknesses as a body. As for Kofi he hasn't been tied directly to the Oil for food scandel yet, but give it time.
Posted by: BillH   2004-11-18 1:30:48 PM  

#9  Is the genocide "out of control," or going according to plan? Remember, this is the UN, in which Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Iran are considered legitimate.
Posted by: jackal   2004-11-18 12:50:03 PM  

#8  Bomb-a-rama, no way, they wouldn't want to offend their Sudanese buddies on the UN Human Rights Commission.
Posted by: Onionman   2004-11-18 11:08:05 AM  

#7  Genocide out of control yet still the UN refuses to act

One question: Have any UN officials called the situation in Sudan genocide?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-11-18 11:02:13 AM  

#6  Mike
Not only were you talking about Kofi, you were talking about the UN-its structure and its value, weren't you?

Yes, the UN has structural weaknesses as a body, and, yes, its many members have weaknesses as individual countries, and, yes, many atrocious situations cannot be fixed easily or perhaps at all. That doesn't mean, though, that all these problems are explained by scare-stories about Kofi Annan's personal greed and corruption.

I think it's important to start the discussion about whether Kofi is a worthy head of an organization by reminding ourselves what the purpose of the UN is; then people can analyze his actions/inactions/words/silences in the context of his role there.
Posted by: Jules 187   2004-11-18 10:25:04 AM  

#5  
Re #3 (Jules)
I don't understand your point. Please re-state your comment understandably to me.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-11-18 10:14:17 AM  

#4  
Re #2 (Onionman) It's not Comfy's personal greed that is letting the genocidal Sudanese off the hook

I agree with you, Onionman. Thank you for your wise support on that point. Together we can correct many Rantburgers' mistaken opinion about that.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-11-18 10:13:04 AM  

#3  "...Atrocious situations..."

What does atrocious mean?

Now that we have a definition, is a comment on "not being fixed easily" acceptable?
Posted by: Jules 187   2004-11-18 10:12:22 AM  

#2  It's not Comfy's personal greed that is letting the genocidal Sudanese off the hook, it's his complete and utter ineptitude. And the smirk on his face when he described the invasion of Iraq as 'illegal' didn't inspire much confidence, either.
Posted by: Onionman   2004-11-18 10:09:28 AM  

#1  
Where are you on this genocide, Mr Kofi Annan? Counting your oil-for-food profits?

Do you have any evidence that Kofi Annan has personally profited from the Oil-for-Food Program? Kojo worked for Cotecna, which had a UN contract. That's all your evidence? Anything else at all? That's very weak substance for all your venom.

What do you think the UN should do about Darfur? What is Kofi Annan not doing that you thing he should do?

Serious answers to serious questions would be much more interesting from you than silly demagoguery.

Yes, the UN has structural weaknesses as a body, and, yes, its many members have weaknesses as individual countries, and, yes, many atrocious situations cannot be fixed easily or perhaps at all.

That doesn't mean, though, that all these problems are explained by scare-stories about Kofi Annan's personal greed and corruption.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-11-18 9:44:31 AM  

00:00