PDA

View Full Version : Sudan 'Genocide'



Nickdfresh
03-30-2005, 10:05 AM
Darfur death toll 'may be 300,000'

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Posted: 3:45 AM EST (0845 GMT)

LONDON, England (Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8033998)) -- As many as 300,000 people may have died in Sudan's western Darfur region in a conflict the international community is doing too little to stop, a British parliamentary report said on Wednesday.

The report also urged the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Sudan, extend its arms embargo and refer war criminals to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

"The world's failure to protect the people of Darfur from the atrocities committed against them by their own government is a scandal," said Tony Baldry, chairman of the cross-party International Development Committee.

The committee said it believed around 300,000 people may have died, far higher than previous death tolls which it said had underestimated the scale of the disaster.

It said it based its figure on estimates from U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland who has said he believed the death toll was much greater than a previous World Health Organization estimate.

The U.N. health body estimated that 70,000 people had died from hunger and disease in Darfur between March and October 2004, but with hard figures difficult to get, the toll has been fiercely contested.

A rebellion has raged in Darfur for more than two years, prompting 2 million to flee their homes.

Sudan's government admits arming some militias to quell the rebellion but denies links to Arab militias known as Janjaweed who are accused of raping, killing and looting.

The committee supported targeted U.N. sanctions on Sudan and recommended the United Nations extend an arms embargo, currently aimed at non-governmental entities in Sudan, to the government.

The Security Council voted on Tuesday to impose a travel ban and an asset freeze on those responsible for atrocities against civilians in Darfur or those who violate the cease-fire.

But Council members remain deadlocked over where to try perpetrators of atrocities. France has introduced a resolution that would send those suspected of war crimes in Darfur to the ICC. But the United States may veto that.

The report urged the British government to press the United States to give up its opposition to using the ICC.

The committee also urged governments to put more pressure on Sudan to improve policing.

And it said the African Union's 2,000-strong ceasefire monitoring force needed a stronger mandate and more troops.

"As a first next-step, the AU should do more pro-actively to police the no-fly zone ... and be provided with the logistical and technical support to enable it to fulfil its mandate," said the report.

Parliamentary committees have no legislative power, but their recommendations can put pressure on governments.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Rikk
03-30-2005, 12:21 PM
The lessons of Rwanda, the Armenians, the Ukraininan famine, the Khmer Rouge's decimation of millions in Cambodia...these are lessons that public officials obviously give a fuck about. Amazing how people can sit and weep at a film about Rwanda but sit back and do nothing when it's actually happening again in the Sudan.

Nickdfresh
03-30-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Rikk
The lessons of Rwanda, the Armenians, the Ukraininan famine, the Khmer Rouge's decimation of millions in Cambodia...these are lessons that public officials obviously give a fuck about. Amazing how people can sit and weep at a film about Rwanda but sit back and do nothing when it's actually happening again in the Sudan.

We're too busy liberating Iraq I guess. But you know the Sudan does have significant oil deposits, so why we don't care more I don't know, oh, I thinks it's because we a pandering to the fucking Red Chinese, who refuse to condemn the Sudanese. We're afraid they'll get all that oil!

Mishar_McLeud
03-30-2005, 01:54 PM
Well there would be like, "Oh fuck poor people of Sudan", so the US gets involved in there, and the whole world goes out with "Fuck Bush Terrorist No.1" banners.
Like it happened with Yugoslavia.

Nickdfresh
03-30-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Mishar_McLeud
Well there would be like, "Oh fuck poor people of Sudan", so the US gets involved in there, and the whole world goes out with "Fuck Bush Terrorist No.1" banners.
Like it happened with Yugoslavia.

Bush wasn't President for that one. It's was "fuck Clinton." (and the NATO Alliance);)

BigBadBrian
03-30-2005, 02:33 PM
We could go into Sudan, I guess, but the BCE would probably be accused of wanting the land for military bases in its never-ending world-bent conquest of oil. :gulp:

FORD
03-30-2005, 02:36 PM
Sudan isn't anywhere near Israel, therefore it's not in the PNAC agenda.

Mishar_McLeud
03-30-2005, 05:47 PM
Somalia was?

Nickdfresh
03-31-2005, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
We could go into Sudan, I guess, but the BCE would probably be accused of wanting the land for military bases in its never-ending world-bent conquest of oil. :gulp:

I don't know if we need to "go in."

Sanctions coupled with wide-scale military support to the Christian/Animist faction in the Civil War and to the Sudanese African (non-arab) muslims would have been sufficient.

But I believe the war is over and a peace treaty was signed.