Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
It is a good idea. In practice I don't think it cuts mustard and I guess that may have to do with what we see as the possible achievements.
And that might be the problem. But the U.N. has stopped short of calling Darfur a genocide and from my position thats ridiculous. In fact I think whats going on there is the exact definition of a genocide.
For the hell of it: (from wiki) Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
If we won't acknowledge something, we don't have any way to fix the issue. And the way I see it, the U.N. is not only not acknowledging it, their giving an excuse to those who would be happy to sweep it under the rug.
I think thats irresponsible and not helping the situation. I'm sure there are countries within the U.N. that don't agree, but we've got this world body now, who comes out with a statement and by proxy all these countries have to go along with a majority opinion.
The death of a people because they're different is wrong, and how its addressed should not be left up to countries with political interests demanding they vote another way. The U.N. should be doing a lot more, but the bureaucracy has killed a brilliant notion.
Edit: I googled what you wrote and I'm not seeing anything thats defending your point.
|
First off the situation in Darfur isn't technically a genocide. It is inhumane (as the UN has said) but it's a civil war over land. If you're going to come up with a strategy to deal with the problem calling it genocide and deploying the troops is ignorant. The United States invaded a country and ignored some of the internal events that turned out to be explosive; look how well that worked out for them. The irony of that undermines almost your entire post. It isn't genocide the UN has already acknowledged that made attempts to deal with the problem.
Now as for the UN doing something about it...I agree it's been disappointing but what do you expect them to do? The situation has barely changed (in regards to how much force they have.) A UN force in Darfur would be whatever the African Union has and maybe help from a some country like India. They don't have the military force to effectively end it. They've had to use diplomacy and send all the aid they could - which is difficult when Khartoum isn't letting peacekeepers in. I agree the UN for the most part sucks but saying "oh they're doing nothing about Darfur and they're not even willing to acknowledge it's genocide" is just ignorance on your part.