08-31-2006, 03:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2006, 03:09 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Security Council Approves U.N. Control of Darfur Force
Thursday, August 31, 2006
That dream has not come true. Until the government who supports the slaughter of some of its own inhabitants agrees to outside intervention, no outside intervention to suppress that slaughter can come in. Catch-22, or just a bad joke?
The Chinese vwto shows their ambivalence to international collective security and stability. They use the UN and their position there to advance their own objectives. (In that regard, they are in very good company with the other major powers. <_< ) The Russians don't seem to buy into any grandiose vision that the UN is the answer to Africa's myriad of problems. On the bright side, no veto. Their abstension speaks volumes to me: Darfur is a regional problem that requires a regional solution. I suspect the Russian subtext was "just like Bosnia and Kosovo were."
I was browsing through The Economist the other day, and noted a number of positions open for hire in Darfur. I wonder if I should send in a resume. :rolleyes: The Kumbaya crowd could use a few realists on staff.
Occhi
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Quote:UNITED NATIONS â The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution Thursday that would give the United Nations authority over peacekeepers in Darfur as soon as Sudan's government gives its consent -- which it has so far refused to do.When "the sole remaining superpower" bestrode the world like a Collossus in the fall of 1991, the man who would lead the "New World Order" was hard at work to make the UN a more effective collective security organization in the long term.
The resolution is meant to give more power and funding to a force, now run by the African Union, that has been unable to stop the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur. The violence has only gotten worse in recent months.
The document passed 12-0 with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining
That dream has not come true. Until the government who supports the slaughter of some of its own inhabitants agrees to outside intervention, no outside intervention to suppress that slaughter can come in. Catch-22, or just a bad joke?
The Chinese vwto shows their ambivalence to international collective security and stability. They use the UN and their position there to advance their own objectives. (In that regard, they are in very good company with the other major powers. <_< ) The Russians don't seem to buy into any grandiose vision that the UN is the answer to Africa's myriad of problems. On the bright side, no veto. Their abstension speaks volumes to me: Darfur is a regional problem that requires a regional solution. I suspect the Russian subtext was "just like Bosnia and Kosovo were."
I was browsing through The Economist the other day, and noted a number of positions open for hire in Darfur. I wonder if I should send in a resume. :rolleyes: The Kumbaya crowd could use a few realists on staff.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete