[Ax]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16563623/

[Grasshopper359]

Well, UN troops aren't needed in Darfur anymore - the blacks have already been driven out or exterminated by the Arab janjaweed. The damage is already done. It's the surrounding areas in Chad and the Central African Republic, but particularily Chad, that beg attention before they turn into massacre zones as well.

And the UN can't come to any kind of resolution for action against the Sudanese govenment, because every time they try, China threatens to veto is until it's so watered down that it's essentially useless. Khartoum is selling China oil at a good price (50% of Sudanese oil exports go to China), and in return, China is selling the Sudanese goverment weapons (in direct violation of the UN arms embargo, nonetheless), which are somehow making their way into the hands of the fanatical raiders who are carrying out these atrocities. These are supported by the Sudanese Air Force, who fly nice, brand new MiG 29s that they got from Russia in 2002, and provide a little shock and awe of their own on black villages in Chad. If the rest of the world is serious about stopping this, then there has to be a willingness to bite the bullet and stop trading with the profiteers who are supporting it: the Chinese government.

[Ax]

The UN is about as useless as Kevin Federline...

[Peatrical]

Get rid of he veto and it would work alot better.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

Get rid of he veto and it would work alot better.

Yes, there needs to be a veto override system and it should definitely be better now without Kofi Annan.

[Peatrical]

People do not give the UN enough credit - most of the world want it to work but it is countries like the US, and China who historically use their powers to further their interests at the detriment of others.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

People do not give the UN enough credit - most of the world want it to work but it is countries like the US, and China who historically use their powers to further their interests at the detriment of others.

Or France, don't forget France. If you're placing blame you gotta throw in France.

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

People do not give the UN enough credit - most of the world want it to work but it is countries like the US, and China who historically use their powers to further their interests at the detriment of others.

To be honest I thought that most countries did this, both historically and currently.

[Peatrical]

Originally Posted by adamwagg

To be honest I thought that most countries did this, both historically and currently.

True, most countries in the UN use the UN to further their goals, but they do so in the GA democratically, they don't use an imbalanced veto to block any motion that has a clear majority but threatens foreign policy which in most cases is imperialistic interests. When only 5 of the many countries in the UN have veto rights claiming most is a little, well a lot over board.

Reading into the use of the veto power by France I don't see the manipulation of foreign affairs as prominent as when the US has used the veto.

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

True, most countries in the UN use the UN to further their goals, but they do so in the GA democratically, they don't use an imbalanced veto to block any motion that has a clear majority but threatens foreign policy which in most cases is imperialistic interests. When only 5 of the many countries in the UN have veto rights claiming most is a little, well a lot over board.

Reading into the use of the veto power by France I don't see the manipulation of foreign affairs as prominent as when the US has used the veto.

I certainly don't disagree that the veto is unbalanced, but would you get these five big countries involved without it?

[Peatrical]

I certainly don't disagree that the veto is unbalanced, but would you get these five big countries involved without it?

France yes, Russia yes, China likely not, US most likely not, Great Britain is hard to say. France, in recent years anyways has been promoting international integration and diplomacy, and Russia is vying for the old days where it had the spotlight on the world stage. America on the other hand has had varied relationships with the UN, some administrations have supported the UN and adhered to it quite well, while the current has not, and he is not the first to do so. Then again I could be surprised entirely. In the past veto has done more harm than good, and if we want an international community that is peaceful we must learn to treat everyone with the same respect and give them the same say, but thast is truly an idealist approach and until countries begin acting more like the majority of the EU anything remotely similar isn't likely. .

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Or France, don't forget France. If you're placing blame you gotta throw in France.

Not. France is usually quite inclined to work with the UN, and currently has over 5000 troops deployed on UN missions (plus another 700 or so with ISAF). France threatened to use their veto against any resolution regarding use of force to overthrow Saddam Hussein, which I believe was a responsible choice, but they've been otherwise frugal with it. When it comes to interfering with UN resolutions, be it through waffling, filibustering, or vetoing, nobody has done it more than the US and China.

But let's suppose that we did miraculously get a resolution against Khartoum. Who's going to supply the manpower? The US and UK are tied up in Iraq, while the rest of NATO has their hands full with ISAF, and their armies are running at operational capacity. This leaves China, Russia, and the African Union. China and Russia aren't going to do contribute a thing, because they're Khartoum's best friends. Besides, neither has ever contributed to UN a mission; why would they start now? Especially since Bejing depends more and more on Sudanese oil to fuel their manufacturing-based economy. This leaves us with 7000 troops from the African Union, with 100 Canadian Cougar AVGPs, which are only on loan. Which isn't enough to do much of anything, as evidenced by the fact that they haven't done much of anything.

The best that I think we can have is for Chad and the Central African Republic to request foreign troops to protect against the Janjaweed. Which, I think is possible. Remotely, but possible. France has already intervened for Chad twice when Khadaffi tried to annex it (Ops Manta and Epervier), and would likely do so again. They still have the manpower for perhaps another brigade-level deployment. Canada is in much the same boat: we've planned and organised the CF to have two brigade-level contingents ready to deploy overseas, of which, one is with ISAF. Between other NATO and UN member nations, it would be realistic to say that another brigade-level force could be fielded. The total would be in the neighbourhood of 6000-7000 troops. Which, to me, looks bleakly inadequate to stop the cross-border violence between the Janjaweed and SLM.