posted by the clown @ 12:20 am
"A UN mission could help to stop the atrocious attacks on civilians in Darfur, but only if it is given the means to act aggressively," said Peter Takirambudde, Africa director for Human Rights Watch."It needs a tough mandate, real resources and political support.""A UN mission could help to stop the atrocious attacks on civilians in Darfur, but only if it is given the means to act aggressively," said Peter Takirambudde, Africa director for Human Rights Watch."It needs a tough mandate, real resources and political support."However, Sudan opposes such moves, saying an extra funding should instead be given to the 7,000 hard-pressed African Union peacekeepers already in Darfur. I tend to think that this would be a massive waste of money and that the tough line should be taken.Haven't we seen enough? Do we have to have more atrocities to convince ourselves that the present 'solutions' are not working? I imagine we do not see all of the picture and much of the logic of what is done is lost on us all. Decisions to help solve the situation in Dafur are taken at a very high level and because the strategies do not always work - does not make them wrong. We all make best decisions based on the facts we have (often influenced by other experiences we have had) - likelihood is that we make the right decision but quirky things can and do happen to rubbish those decisions. Witness Chelsea being beaten recently when they should have predictably won 3-1. Manchester United have had similar catastrophies. I hope by comparing such irregularities outs our present dealings with Dafur in perspective. Has anyone any good practical solutions or are we all set to groan? My Prime Minister is doing his best and needs our support.Wy is the peace in Dafur failing? Maybe we should look at the countries who have in interest in failure to answer this question.
I wish I had an answer. I listened to a journalist recently recount her findings re the genocide in Rwanda. She said that the same types of political processes that operated then seem to be happenning now in relationship to Sudan. Objectively a lot of killing has happened in Sudan in the Darfur region and it is ongoing.Why is the UN incapable to act in this situation. For sure there are countries opposing any interventions. That seems to relate to political,economic,tribal and racial interests.Why is it that the Middle East seems to be the number one agenda in the UN when far more people are dying in Africa?why the silence in our public and political spheres?Why were there 20.000 people on the streets in london for the march re the environment but only about 1000 to protest about the tradegy in Darfur?Do I have the answers? No. I was part of that 1000. Did it make a difference? if any, it was very minimal. Maybe it is part of a growing concern that is bubbling up from under the radar and the debate re Darfur might come more and more to the surface. Just maybe the media might wake up. and just maybe the politicians will stand up and be counted. Because so far even the usual suspects are remarkably quiet. And just maybe the UN will be given a mandate to do something before the people of Darfur are no more.And all my concern for making a living is of no importance, if all of us who make up as individuals the citizenry of the advanced industrial nations remain silent.
check latest reports on BBC. It seems the sudanese government might be on the brink of accepting a larger force from UN to protect citizens of Darfur. However, lets wait and see as to what actually happens and whether that stops the murder.
Post a Comment
Create a Link