No genocide in Dafur so that's alright then

Posted by: 7V on 02 February 2005

A UN report has said that Sudan's government and its militia "systematically abused civilians in Darfur", including rape and mass murder, but this did not constitute 'genocide'.

Of course, if genocide had been found to have taken place, the signatories to a UN convention would have been legally obliged to act to end it.

No action required then. Phew.

Am I being over cynical here?

Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 02 February 2005 by Berlin Fritz
It is strange at times how certain media cum political agencies define atrocities, wether small or large scale, and culpability is determined I would imagine there-from ? Timing though is also very interesting, and I wonder which publication decided to print this UN report (which is not new) to re-kindle it in the public arena ?

Fritz Von A day at the races Big Grin
Posted on: 02 February 2005 by 7V
quote:
Extract from UN Report:
The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide.

Well colour me political. Confused

The report entitled: Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General is dated 25th January, 2005 but I believe it was only released yesterday.

I saw it on the Beeb, yesterday: UN rules out genocide in Darfur

Regards
Steve M

PS: One of the best sites for keeping up with the Dafur situation is: Sudan Watch
Posted on: 02 February 2005 by Berlin Fritz
I could have sworn I'd read it months ago, though as you say, I suspect this is the final big conclusive report (official), and the other UN and other NGO reports weree interim so to speak ? Not sute whazt I feel abouit Clintoin being a future Sec-Gen, there again I suppose being an avis P-Eye reader for nearly 35 years I do tend to miss the important realities in life, innit.

Frtz Von Timeconsumingreportsarefinewhenyouhavethetimeandwilltostudythem Big Grin
Posted on: 02 February 2005 by 7V
Gosh, I'd never heard that Clinton could become UN Sec-Gen. My first reaction is a definite not sure.

You read P-Eye? How do you find the time?

Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 02 February 2005 by long-time-dead
If Clinton gets the post does UN Sec Gen mean :

UN Secretay's Genitalia ??

Well, blow me !
Posted on: 04 February 2005 by mattbr
yeah, well, Kofi's track record on genocide and other forms of abuse isn't exactly shiny.

The UN, and the apparatchiks that constitute it are more of a necessary evil than anything else, IMHO, but hey - it's a very, very necessary one.
Posted on: 05 February 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by mattbr:
The UN, and the apparatchiks that constitute it are more of a necessary evil than anything else, IMHO, but hey - it's a very, very necessary one.

I don't think the UN is very, very necessary. It does more harm than good and should now be replaced.

Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 05 February 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
I don't think the UN is very, very necessary. It does more harm than good and should now be replaced.

Regards
Steve M

The UN is ineffectual and the problem is that they are the organisation relied upon to "sort out" the world's problems. In reality, the burden has, and will continue, to fall upon the United States until European members realise that you can't reason with military dictators.

EW
Posted on: 05 February 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
The UN is ineffectual...

The UN is ineffectual, corrupt and partisan.
Posted on: 05 February 2005 by MichaelC
So does anyone still believe the UN has a role to play???

Mike