US blocks U.N. briefing on atrocities in Sudan

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton blocked a U.N. envoy on Monday from briefing the Security Council on grave human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region, saying the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them.

Bolton, joined by China, Algeria and Russia, prevented Juan Mendez, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from briefing the council on his recent visit to Darfur, despite pleas from Annan and 11 other council members that Mendez be heard.

But Bolton said he had objected to the briefing to make the point the council should be "talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation" in Darfur. He gave no new proposals.

"We cannot let the government of Sudan get away with that," Mendez told a news conference. "I haven't seen any indication of the international community telling Sudan, 'You don't have a choice, you have to cooperate with the ICC."'

Mendez said the Security Council had to put more pressure on the Sudanese to disarm nomad Arab gangs, known as Janjaweed, responsible for many of the atrocities now escalating in camps housing African tribesmen thrown off their land. So far Sudanese trials of any perpetrators were meaningless, he said.

They noted Bolton had lined up with the three council members -- Algeria, China and Russia -- which have watered down action against Khartoum.

"He's playing into the hands of people who don't want to do anything," said one council diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to irritate Washington.

Source:
Reuters

I see that the newly appointd US Ambassador to United Nations is doing his Job excellently! I bet Bush is really proud on him and happy with this decision.

"Who cares about this People from Sudan! - let's attack these Terrorists in Syria!"

Here are some links on Sudan:

BBC - Sudan

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

Slepless in Sudan - Uncesored, direct from a dazed & confuzed air worker in Darfur

you know why they dont care? both the US and russia are supplying arms and aircraft to both sides and making a mint. most of the pilots over there now are russian from what i understand.

And China's got some stakes ther too.. I heard they've got some 4000 soldiers in Sudan or somewhere else in Africa.. What for??!!

That's U.S' way of doing it. They rather stop the talking and go on straight to the gun. BANG BANG!!!

I don't get it why the hell they would stop the U.N from briefing the Security Council on the issue. It's not as if they have anything to lose from hearing the atrocities in Sudan, is there?

Originally posted by Heartagram
I don't get it why the hell they would stop the U.N from briefing the Security Council on the issue. It's not as if they have anything to lose from hearing the atrocities in Sudan, is there?

Umm, if you read or re-read the article again [even with its 'a' typical anti-US Reuters slant], it will become self-evident [when read between the lines] what the US, through Bolton, is indicating: that talk is cheap when coming form the UN on the Sudan situation. The UN has been talking about the Sudan situation long enough. Actions speak louder than words.

But hey, according to you guys, its A.O.K. to keep talking about the genocide taking place from the safety and luxurious surroundings of the UN building......in New York, all the while, the situation in Sudan goes further and further down the drain. Yes.....always to those who oppose force: watching is good, whereas, "BANG BANG!!" and actually doing something worthwhile to stop it is bad.

The PEOPLE in and of Sudan have EVERYTHING to lose while those in the UN continue to hear briefings over and over and over and over again about the atrocities that are still occurring in Sudan. But hey, lets hear them briefings read one more time.....k?

Nothing to lose, right?







seekerof

[edit on 13-10-2005 by Seekerof]

And oh, btw, while you and Souljah group hug, how about place blame on all parties involved in this blocking, k?

Let me point out the other nations who blocked the briefing:

Bolton, joined by China, Algeria and Russia, prevented Juan Mendez, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from briefing the council on his recent visit to Darfur, despite pleas from Annan and 11 other council members that Mendez be heard.

Another case of a misleading news article title. :shk:





seekerof

[edit on 12-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Bolton, joined by China, Algeria and Russia, prevented Juan Mendez, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from briefing the council on his recent visit to Darfur, despite pleas from Annan and 11 other council members that Mendez be heard.

Slowly read the word "joined" and tell who is the initiator of the blocking?

Now, who does the initiator represents?

Next, read the title of this thread.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yes.....always to those who oppose force: watching is good, whereas, "BANG BANG!!" and actually doing something worthwhile to stop it is bad.

Whoever said that going "BANG BANG!" is ever bad? Notice that there is always a step before "BANG BANG!"? If you have to go for an examination and your lecturer reiterates before it what he/she has taught would you listen or would tell him/her to shut it?

The steps before the "BANG BANG!" are the most the important one. The "BANG BANG!" is interdependant of the pre-"BANG BANG!" stage.

Get my juice, honey?


[edit on 13/10/05 by Heartagram]

maybe if you tried english instead of slang, you'd get your point (whatever the hell it is, because i cant tell) across better.

Originally posted by snafu7700
maybe if you tried english instead of slang, you'd get your point (whatever the hell it is, because i cant tell) across better.

For your sake.

Originally posted by Heartagram
Whoever said that going "BANG BANG!" is ever bad? Notice that there is always a step before "BANG BANG!"? If you have to go for an examination and your lecturer reiterates before it what he/she has taught would you listen or would tell him/her to shut it?

The steps before the "BANG BANG!" are the most the important one. The "BANG BANG!" is interdependant of the pre-"BANG BANG!" stage.

Whoever said that going out and taking action is ever bad? Notice that there is always a step before taking that action? If you have to go for an examination and your lecturer reiterates before it what he/she has taught would you listen or would tell him/her to shut it?

The steps before the that particular action is the most the important one. The action taken is interdependant of the pre-action taken or the planning stage.



Read to your heart's content.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Umm, if you read or re-read the article again [even with its 'a' typical anti-US Reuters slant], it will become self-evident [when read between the lines] what the US, through Bolton, is indicating: that talk is cheap when coming form the UN on the Sudan situation. The UN has been talking about the Sudan situation long enough. Actions speak louder than words.

But hey, according to you guys, its A.O.K. to keep talking about the genocide taking place from the safety and luxurious surroundings of the UN building......in New York, all the while, the situation in Sudan goes further and further down the drain. Yes.....always to those who oppose force: watching is good, whereas, "BANG BANG!!" and actually doing something worthwhile to stop it is bad.[edit on 13-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Very true. No one has commented on how Bolton's refusal to hear another briefing on Sudan garnered enough attention to bring the issue to the papers, who seemed content to let the Sudan issue slide for the time being.

I'll admit that I was suprised when I read the headline in the NY Times, but I imagine that shock factor was what they were going for, or possibly some ammo for headline-cruisers. In any case, when three permenant members of the security council who are far from seeing eye-to-eye agree on something, it doesn't exactly qualify as a unilateral move by the US to promote death and destruction.

You know, there was a South African mercenary unit there holding everything together quite nicely, with little or no violence, right up until the Useless Nations decided to but their nose in and force any military unit not under their direct control out of the region. The mercenaries left, after warning everyone what would happen, and sure enough, we have the situation that is there now. Funny how nobody is in a big rush to do anything but talk about it after screwing it up so badly. Bolton is right. Talk is cheap, let's see the Useless Nations get up off their collective a*****, and DO something for a change.

Seekerof

I understand you dislike Reuters and it's really logical, since US Military Propaganda machine does not have any infulence on Reuters and the Vast Network of Journalists that they employ. Its simply uncontrollable! And all the information coming out of that network, must have a real Anti-Current-US-Goverment "agenda" for all you bush-supporters, that are so eager to shut down anybody that has something to say against the Shrub and his corporate friends. I understand that perfectly.

So let's check the background of this Bolton guy, and I don't mean Michael Bolton:

Bolton was a supporter of the Vietnam War, enlisting in the National Guard, but did not serve in Vietnam.

Well another one of those guys. Great!

Bolton has been a prominent participant in many neoconservative lobbying groups such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG).

Wonderful. I guess his Role in the UN is going to reflect all his "prominent group memberships" - like PNAC, JINSA CPSG. Ahh yes! All the war supporter groups you can find in the USA! Such a Noble and Paecekeeping Man he is!

Bolton also led the Bush administration's opposition on constitutional grounds to the International Criminal Court, placing heavy pressure on many countries to sign agreements with the US to exempt Americans from any possible prosecution by the Court; around 70 have signed such agreements so far.

So, if I understand this correctly, Bolton was the leaing diplomate behind the "Immunisation of American Empire from International Laws and Prosecutions".

Yep - he sure deserves to be an Ambassador in the United Nations!

Here is some more "nice" articles about Bolton:

Bush gives UN the Finger

The Dubious career of John Bolton

Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran

Bush's Pervers UN pick

John Bolton and the road to Teheran

I am Sure that Bolton will do his Job very well in order to pave the Road to Teheran and first to Damascus. Forget Sudan and the African Continent - Iran, here we Come!

well, i'll say one thing for you souljah, though i disagree with about ninety percent of what you say, you do at least back it up with reference material, unlike some of your cohorts

however, if you think the liberal US media supports the war and bush, you really arent paying attention. they dont report everything that happens, true (which is why i read a wide variety of world reports....even al jazeera, even though i know they are slanted way east...i figure somewhere in the middle is the truth), but they are busying themselves setting the country up for a hillary run in 08, so they are decidedly anti bush.

unfortunately, i find myself agreeing with you for once though. reuters is probably the only news service that doesnt seem to be slanted one way or the other.

Originally posted by Souljah
saying the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them.

What the heck does the Security Council need to be breifed about? I don't like Bolton particularly but this makes sense enough. Whats the sense in a breifing, whats the sense in talking about.

Who's going to send troops to invade and occupy the Sudan? Everyone knows whats going on there, the US isn't going to get invovled, Kofi Anan hasn't called for action and started it, who's volunteering?Pakistan can't send troops now, and they often do these things. If no one is ready to go, whats the sense of talking about it?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You know, there was a South African mercenary unit there holding everything together quite nicely, with little or no violence, right up until the Useless Nations decided to but their nose in and force any military unit not under their direct control out of the region. The mercenaries left, after warning everyone what would happen, and sure enough, we have the situation that is there now. Funny how nobody is in a big rush to do anything but talk about it after screwing it up so badly. Bolton is right. Talk is cheap, let's see the Useless Nations get up off their collective a*****, and DO something for a change.

Executive Outcomes? Sounds more like their operation in Sierra Leone though, I didn't know that they did any work in Sudan prior to their marginalization and eventual disassembly.

I forget the name of the unit, but I was watching it on a documentary. Everything was nice and calm, then the UN said "If you aren't under our control, go home." and everything fell apart.

Souljah....nice take on what I was implying. *clap, clap*
The real issue here is not my dislike of the anti-US Reuters or the even worse BBC, nor is it about Boltons past or current affiliations, nor is it about Bush-supporters, nor is it about PNAC, AEI, JINSA, CPSG, nor is it about your incessant love of Bolton, in general.

It is about the defunct UN and its inability and seemingly unwillingness, other than to have redundant briefings upon briefings upon briefings ad infinitum, to doing anything remotely worthwhile to stop what is happening, and has been happening for quite some time, in Sudan, and the genocide that has been occurring under the UN's genocide over-briefed watchful eyes!

Again, talk is cheap.
You and I have been round and round on this issue of Sudan and elsewheres in Africa. As such, the UN is doing what, exactly, to stop what is happening? Let me tell you before you decide to link somemore of those mis-informed links: they are doing nothing but having continued and redundant briefings---you know, just talking about it. No problem though right? Another couple thousand people in Sudan died today, and every day, while the defunct UN, along with you, along with others, continue to dwell on off-issues revolving around the US, and not the defunct United Nations continued inactions. Hello!?

Try this: Nuff' said.





seekerof

[edit on 13-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Again, talk is cheap.
You and I have been round and round on this issue of Sudan and elsewheres in Africa. As such, the UN is doing what, exactly, to stop what is happening? Let me tell you before you decide to link somemore of those mis-informed links: they are doing nothing but having continued and redundant briefings---you know, just talking about it. No problem though right? Another couple thousand people in Sudan died today, and every day, while the defunct UN, along with you, along with others, continue to dwell on off-issues revolving around the US, and not the defunct United Nations continued inactions. Hello!?

I agree with you here. Talk is Cheap and the UN talks alot. The UN is doing nothing, the World is doing nothing, China is doing nothing, Russia is doing nothing, USA is doing nothing, Europe is doing nothing, Australia is doing nothing - but when SOMEBODY wants to present his Report to the UN, he is shut up by the US Ambassador and "his allies" in that action. Now, what Good did that do? And now you are asking yourself, why things don't get done? Could it be that "maybe" somebody is trying to obstruct the work of the UN in Africa? I am sure Bolton would not heistate to put a UN-crusade on Iran and Syria in a second if some ruthless dictator would kill 1000 people a day - but Africa? Sudan? Where is that anyway?

I just hate Politicians.

All of them.

What work? Sitting around talking about how another 50,000 people were killed? You mean that work? Because that's ALL they were going to do.

meanwhile, as people use politics for propaganda purposes on either side, thousands more die.

Again, what country, anywhere in the god damned world, is going to do anything about this? Its a disgrace that the US won't, who cares if reactionaries will cry that its imperialism.