UN passes resolutions against Sudan

[Morgeruat]

The United Nations Security Council in New York just passed a resolution (No1564) on Sudan, adopting the US draft. This resolution got 11 votes and 4 abstentions. Here are few important notes:

1. The ambassador of Algeria, representing the Arab League, Abdallah Baali, rejected the resolution. It is to note that M Baali has also rejected the previous UN resolution 1556 on Sudan. This shows that the Arab League bloc, represented by Baali is attempting to block all UN resolutions that could end up in interventions. Diplomatic sources explained the reasons why. The Algerian representative also rejected UNSCR no 1559, voted two weeks ago, calling on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon.

2. The Russian ambassador called for the disarming of the Janjawid. An interesting position showing the new Russian position regarding the Jihadist groups around the world.

3. More importantly, in the pro-al Qaida chat rooms, the vote and the discussions were followed closely. After the vote took place, a Jihadi room leader said "this is an attack against Islam. We must respond!" Which raises the Terror factor in Sudan. The Jihadis will try to use religion, but the African factor is stronger.

4. Today of the people of Darfur and Sudan have just won a battle.

http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/348255.htm
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?f...icleId=2231304 (a similar article, with some minorly different additional info)

a quick web search for reactions should prove most enlightening. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-20-2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, that's what's needed -- a resolution. Wait'll they suffer the grim fate of a piece of paper waived in their general direction!!

Sorry, I drank an extra helping of my Cynical Juice with breakfast this morning.

[Morgeruat]

*chuckle* my reaction as well, but at least the UN isn't ignoring the problem anymore (unlike the last 18+ months it's been going on), even if nothing will come of it but much finger waggling and stern glares.

[The Hierophant]

Well, much more could be done by the UN if it had its own standing army.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Well, much more could be done by the UN if it had its own standing army.

Really? And what might that be?

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: quote: Originally posted by The Hierophant: Well, much more could be done by the UN if it had its own standing army.

Really? And what might that be? [/QUOTE]Why, forcefully removing the government of any Nation that opposes UN resolutions and instituting new leadership sympathetic to UN ideology within said Nation of course [img]smile.gif[/img] You're familiar with this sort of practice as a US soldier I take it?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Well, much more could be done by the UN if it had its own standing army.

Technically, it does have armies. Coalitions of it's member states can act in accordance to resolutions. For example, The U.N. flag flew side-by-side the South Korean flag after the south was reclaimed. The N.K. was beaten back by multi-national forces flying the U.N. banner in the beginning of the Korean War.

However imperfect the U.N. at least we can idealize the fact that it has the word "united" in it's title. Making it at least seem like being "united" is something we Earth folks actually strive to do. Recent times suggest the word rings hollow. It looks good on paper, "united" but like a bad dream real life is full of hand calculated long division. Or its just the political season and I am rambling.... [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

***********************************

[ 09-21-2004, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Why, forcefully removing the government of any Nation that opposes UN resolutions and instituting new leadership sympathetic to UN ideology within said Nation of course [img]smile.gif[/img]

Not any or every Nation that opposes UN resolutions though!

And as a mere taxpaying U.S. citizen that does sound familiar to me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I do wonder... What the hell actually is the U.N. Ideaology? I betcha it has crazy ideals like democracy and human rights and due process. Just guessin.

[ 09-21-2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Technically, it does have armies. Coalitions of it's member states can act in accordance to resolutions. For example, The U.N. flag flew side-by-side the South Korean flag after the south was reclaimed. The N.K. was beaten back by multi-national forces flying the U.N. banner in the beginning of the Korean War.

Mmmm, yes, international coalition forces have certainly operated effectively under a UN banner in the past. But by standing army I meant a permanent, maintained military force loyal only to the UN General Assembly/Security council, not to individual Nation States; in the vein discussed here.

[ 09-21-2004, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by The Hierophant: Why, forcefully removing the government of any Nation that opposes UN resolutions and instituting new leadership sympathetic to UN ideology within said Nation of course [img]smile.gif[/img]

Not any or every Nation that opposes UN resolutions though!

And as a mere taxpaying U.S. citizen that does sound familiar to me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I do wonder... What the hell actually is the U.N. Ideaology? I betcha it has crazy ideals like democracy and human rights and due process. Just guessin. [/QUOTE]If that's their ideology they fail on a number of levels, look at the countries on their humans rights commision, look at how they turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by dictators, or "scold them vigorously" with one hand while taking money from them with the other.