http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm
France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.
The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs. The US also hinted that the sanctions could be extended to the government. Meanwhile, African leaders have urged Khartoum to stop bombing Darfur and say their proposed 300-strong force will have a mandate to protect civilians. US Secretary of State Colin Powell says promises to reign in the pro-government militia, known as the Janjaweed, have not been kept by Khartoum so far. "Only action not words can win the race against death in Darfur," he said.
‘Civil war’
Some one million people have fled their homes and at least 10,000 have been killed in what the UN calls "the world’s worst humanitarian crisis."
A rebellion broke out in Darfur early last year, when two groups took up arms, accusing the government of ignoring the region.
"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio. France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan. Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur. "I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said.
Human rights activists say the Janjaweed are conducting a genocide against Darfur’s black African population. Those who have fled their homes say the Janjaweed ride on horses and camels into villages which have just been bombed by government aircraft, killing the men and raping the women. Sudan denies backing the militia and, under strong international pressure, has promised to disarm them.
Travel ban Chairman of the African Union Commission Alpha Oumar Konare said that the 300 troops would arrive in Sudan by the end of July. He said they would intervene if they saw civilians being killed. The government of Sudan is clearly on a short leash John Danforth US Ambassador to the UN "We have called for a halt to the bombings… We received promises today from Khartoum," he said.
Analysts say that at least 15,000 troops would be needed to bring peace to the vast area of Darfur. The BBC’s Barnaby Phillips says the African Union is determined to be taken seriously as a body devoted to solving the continent’s problems, but is severely hampered by a lack of resources. African leaders say they hope richer countries will also do their bit to help. A draft UN resolution proposed by the US envisages travel and arms sanctions on Janjaweed. A previous Security Council statement on Darfur failed to criticise Khartoum directly, after resistance from Pakistan and China, instead urging cooperation and the disarming of the Janjaweed. The Security Council met in closed session for several hours on Wednesday and the draft resolution is being discussed again on Thursday. Council members disagree over how long the Sudanese government should be given to resolve the situation itself, says the BBC’s Stephen Gibbs in New York. The ‘Janjaweed’ militia are accused of ethnic cleansing
Some countries, including Pakistan, say that Sudan should be allowed sufficient time to demonstrate that it means what it says.
But the US remains sceptical over Sudan’s commitment to act.
28 Comments On Why is France opposing UN sanctions with Sudan?
I think the answer is inside u’re copy/past post:
"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old"
Do u even read your post that u copy here or do u try to start another flame war in this forums between US and France by adding "Why" to the title of this BBC news?
Yes I did, did you? The bottom line is that this "junior" Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier is pretty cavalier about the human rights atrocities of Sudan when he says it’s nothing more than a "civil war" then seemingly dismisses the killings "as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women" while the UN says that it is the the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. I’m not trying to "flame" France as you put it, I’m just baffled that France is saying this nonsense when it is otherwise very vocal about human rights abuses in other parts of the world such as Iraq for instance. Furthermore, I’m concerned that France is taking this position because of it’s OIL interests in Sudan. I’m interested in the French viewpoint other than Renaud Muselier. So far, I’m disappointed that the first opinion from a French native is so defensive and animostic.
Hey I didn’t know we had oil interests in Sudan ! This is so cool ! As a matter of fact, I didn’t even know there was any oil in Sudan … lol
Wow, we really seem to have oil interests everywhere ! No wonder Chimp hates us that bad. Maybe if he gets reselected in november, he’ll want to conquer us too !!! Ouch …
Now Kermit, since you seem to like c&p news, here’s one good piece for you.
CRC
AP: Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq – The Iraq insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and it’s being led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at being pushed from power alongside Saddam Hussein (news – web sites).
Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000 an estimate reflected in the insurgency’s continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone.
And some insurgents are highly specialized one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers.
The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state.
"We’re not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The official and others told The Associated Press the guerrillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.
(…)
Lol crc, I stand corrected! How dare I question this issue about Sudan, I should be "spanking the chimp" bloody about Iraq regardless of the colossal hypocrisy that goes on when it comes to other issues in the world! I’ll remember to turn a blind eye to the worst human rights violations in the world occuring in Sudan from now on. Whew, that’s a relief and thanks!
you’re welcome any time dude
CRC
No animosity here, weird comment for someone who started a flame war.
U think it is pretty cavalier the statement of the French "junior" prime minister?
well read this quote from the "Washington Post" :
"On the other hand, the US government has not yet declared the situation a genocide, and has not committed to military intervention to stop the slaughter on the ground and to protect the advance of aid efforts in Darfur."
So neither EU or US say it is…
As for crc95 here’s another article from the same website where Kermit took is quote:
What drives US policy in Sudan?
But why is the United States so interested in Sudan?
The relationship between Sudan and the United States is a curious one.
The Americans still list Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism, and formal diplomatic ties are at very low level.
Yet by deploying a mixture of aid and sanctions, Washington has brought about major changes of policy in Khartoum.
The US government has been the godparent of the peace agreement that seems finally to have ended the war in the south of Sudan.
Cynics often claim American foreign policy is driven by oil.
Sudan does have oil, and African producers are an alternative to the increasingly turbulent Middle East.
But southern Sudan is never going to be a cheap or easy place to produce.
Co-operative
Other issues are more likely to be driving Washington’s policy.
One is the pressure from right-wing Christian groups in the US, who have taken up the cause of their fellow Christians in Sudan.
Their lobbying – on the issues of slavery and the forcible imposition of Sharia law – helped get sanctions imposed on Sudan in 1997.
But the most urgent driving force is likely to be Sudan’s place in President Bush’s war against terrorism.
It has a radical Islamist government which hosted Osama Bin Laden in the early 90s; a number of attacks against US interests were planned from Sudan.
Since then the Americans have worked hard at persuading Khartoum to be more co-operative.
Osama Bin Laden was expelled, training camps were closed, and the US state department says Sudan has "deepened its cooperation in investigating and arresting extremists".
Colin Powell now has to tread a fine line between putting pressure on the Sudanese government over its activities in Darfur, and driving it back into the arms of America’s enemies.
Original article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3853671.stm
Kermit: My applause to you for opening a very interesting subject. I have no particular knowledge on it other than we historically had "conditions" tied to our trading with the Sudanese. I am learning from CRC95 and ManuNice from their posts. I must consult the library.
ManuNice: Excellent find in that article. With oil, the Religious Right, and The Chimp that is a dangerous combination. I feel an opinion starting to form and it doesn’t reflect well on the Bushies. Somalia wasn’t that long ago, either and that turned out to be a disaster and a huge crock of disinformation.
Donerail
ManuNice,
Below is a copy of a clear declaration of what Washington says about Sudan back on June 26th. Like you described in the BBC article, The United States is walking a fine line with Sudan when it comes to the war on terrorism but the United States can’t ignore the atrocities in Sudan. Again, that’s why they’re backing the UN Sanctions. I don’t understand why France doesn’t, can you tell me?
If you are saying this quote by BBC labels the US govt as cavalier, "On the other hand, the US government has not yet declared the situation a genocide, and has not committed to military intervention to stop the slaughter on the ground and to protect the advance of aid efforts in Darfur.", then that’s not much of a retort to what Renaud Muselier is alleging regarding the current situation in Sudan as I noted earlier. Again the BBC article I reference says that France CURRENTLY HAS significant oil interests in Sudan yet cynics in the BBC article you reference still harp on the United States about helping Sudan for oil and not a word about France. Quite the double standard isn’t it?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040626-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 2004
Text of U.S.-EU Declaration on Sudan
Dromoland Castle
Shannon, Ireland
The United States and the European Union welcome the Nairobi Declaration of 5 June 2004 on the Final Phase of Peace in Sudan which paves the way for the signature of a comprehensive peace agreement, putting an end to 20 years of conflict in southern Sudan, and commend all those who have worked with the parties to bring the peace talks to this point, in particular the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the host nation to the talks, Kenya. The protocols signed at Naivasha on 26 May 2004 demonstrate the continued commitment by both parties and the international community to end this longest-running civil war in Africa. We urge the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) to sustain the momentum towards an early conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement. We reiterate our firm commitment to support a faithfully implemented comprehensive peace agreement designed to bring peace to all areas of Sudan. The United Nations has an important role to play in achieving this goal. We fully support the work of the U.N. in addressing the humanitarian and human rights crises in Darfur.
We express grave concern at the continuing humanitarian crisis in Darfur, western Sudan, where the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, who live in desperate conditions and require immediate life-saving relief, are at great risk. We strongly condemn the human rights violations that have been perpetrated there, particularly by Jingaweit militias. We reiterate our call on the Government of Sudan to immediately stop the violence perpetrated by the Jingaweit, ensure the protection and security of civilians and humanitarian workers, disarm the militias and allow full and unimpeded access by humanitarian groups to Darfur. We also reiterate that those responsible for the atrocities must be held accountable. In addition, we call on all signatories to the cease-fire agreement of 8 April 2004, and their proxy militias, to fully respect the terms of the cease-fire and to cooperate with the African Union-led monitoring mission presently being deployed in Darfur.
We commend the African Union for assuming a leading role in its monitoring mission. To support the AU-led mission, we are actively participating, contributing financially as well as sending observers. We encourage all parties to the conflict in Darfur to initiate a dialogue to begin addressing the underlying political and social problems that have led to this crisis.
We call on the Government of Sudan to stop supporting the aggressive actions by militia groups in the Upper Nile region.
Statement by the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson
France takes note of the Sudanese government’s new commitments to disarm the Janjaweed militia.
France calls on the government in Khartoum to implement these measures effectively and immediately. Disarmament is essential as it is the only way to re-establish trust and consequently to encourage the civilian population to return to their villages
France also believes that only a basic political settlement will end the violence in Darfur. In this regard the announcement by the president of the African Union, Mr. Konare, in N’djamena (Chad) on July 2 that negotiations are to resume in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) on July 15 is a step in the right direction, and France is prepared to offer every assistance to this important meeting
Satisfied yet ?
CRC
Kermit: considering Bush’s Iraq war for oil profits, and the eagerness in which Americans believed this war monger, I dont think America (you included) has the right to judge ANY other country for supposed oil interests, real or imagined.
Sure, that sounds nice but it would have been better if they stepped up to the plate with the U.N.
LaVieilleBranche,
Are you telling me that the whole reason the US went to war with Iraq was to make a profit in oil? I’m not getting any dividends, the US nation deficit is sky high, I’m paying more at the pump, US soldiers are giving their lives on a daily basis. Tell me where is the profit? As for your statement about making judgements, I live in a country where one can make judgements about whom one wants, opinions can be aired without fear of reprisal. Your pietistic demand for non-judgement on France’s opposition to the UN sanction is moot.
Kermit" Do YOU think any oil profits are going to go to YOU?? surely you jest! The billions being made in Iraq are not for the common American like you or me. Those profits are for Bush’s friends at Halliburten (spelling?) and their associates. We’re ALL paying more at the pump. It surely is to the benefit of Exxon and other companies, isn’t it? All those Dead americans and Iraqis are all "collateral damage" to the Bush administration. The cost of doing business. As I said in a different thread, I wonder how Bush would feel if it was HIS daughters dying on a desert sand pile in Iraq?
Since I too live in a country where "where one can make judgements about whom one wants, opinions can be aired without fear of reprisal," as you so strongly said, I will also say my opinion:
Bush is a liar, a thief and a greedy b**tard who only cares about getting even richer than he is. He cares NOTHING about the American people, inasmuch as he can manipulate and USE them to his personal gain. Calling him an Evil Chimp is a compliment, he’s MUCH worse than that. He should be brought up on war crimes for his war for oil profits in Iraq and given the death penalty for the murder of those Iraqi civilians and for the murder of all those American solders. He is beyond redemption.
True, opinions can be stated and I’m glad I can state mine as well. Certainly your feelings are clear about Bush. I’d agree with your opinion about Bush if you have any hard evidence to back your statements up otherwise, I’d consider it a politically charged statement to elect Senator Kerry and take it as such.
Kermit: LaVieilleBranche was getting carried away there. She means well but tends to lose patience when the whackos get on here. I think she was saying that Bush is personable, but somewhat dull and inconsistent. That notwithstanding, he is certainly under the spell of Chaney and the religious right. He is a very dangerous person, if not for his own beliefs or ineptitude, then those of Chaney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. It is frightening. Donerail
Donerail : I don’t really see Chimp under the religious right’s influence, but you know better than me. I see him rather under the influence of the ‘neo-conservatives’, a very frightful bunch of gangsters with a plan, that call themselves or are called ‘conservatives’ but are probably as conservative as an empty bag of Dorrito’s. I can have the utmost respect for true conservatives and republicans, when they can stand for what they believe in, but I really despise and hate those #^~&@* neo-cons.
Je ne vois pas vraiment le Chimp sous l’influence de la droite religieuse, mais tu connais mieux que moi. Je le vois plutôt sous l’influence des ‘néo-conservateurs’, une bande de voleurs qui fait peur, qui se font appeler ou sont appelés conservateurs mais qui le sont tout autant qu’un paquet de chips vide. J’ai le plus grand respect envers les conservateurs et les républicains, quand ils revendiquent ce en quoi ils croient, mais je déteste vraiment ces #^~&@* de néo-cons.
CRC
crc95: If you were over hear you would appreciate more the antics of the Religious Right. And believe me, the RR and The Chimp are absolutely in the same bed. Bush, by the way, said that God told him we were on the right track to invade Iraq. Apparently God speaks to him a lot.
kermit/crc95: I started doing some reading last night about Sudan. So far it isn’t looking too good for the Brits, Germans, and French. At the turn of the last century, Khartoum finally fell to the Brits (in 1900). The UK apparently had stirred up the Islamic fundamentalists there and in Egypt. I recognize it was the "colonial era" which is supposedly finished but the reading was riveting. It is amazing how valuable history is. I am now onto a biography of Churchill and he was very active at that time as well as a Lieutenant in the British Hussars. So far it is leading to a lot of credence to maxpower’s (albeit, somewhat overgeneralized) posts. Prior to my reading which you two inspired, all I knew about it was the movie "Laurence of Arabia." Donerail
so how isn’t it looking good for us ?
CRC
et qu’est-ce qui n’a pas l’air bon pour nous ?
I’m not sure if this is the correct thread for this, however, while on http://www.lemonde.fr I saw this article and I think you should read this, for those of you who can read French. If this is the wrong thread for this, I’m sure the Admins will let me know..
Here is the title of the article:
La CIA savait que l’Irak avait abandonné son programme d’ADM
The English translation for the title is:
The CIA knew that Iraq had abandoned their WMD program.
Here is the link:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-371672,0.html
I hope le monde will still have this link active tomorrow.
it’s on the news headlines all over the press in the free world. Yahoo! News has it too.
CRC
ça fait les gros titres de toute la presse du monde libre. Yahoo! News l’a aussi.
crc: oh! I didn’t know…sorry for the post then…
no problem LVB
CRC
crc95/LaVieilleBranche: What a shock that the CIA screwed up!! How could that be possible!!! Did they ever screw up before??? Amero-franc, where are you?
crc95: with regard to my current readings on history, the trio of F, GB, and D all don’t look good because of their colonial activities. That is a subjective opinion of mine right now as I am still doing research.
Donerail
Donerail,
I’m into this book right now written by French historian Marc Ferro, Le Livre Noir Du Colonialisme. I believe no colonial experience look any good when it comes to occupation, oppression, genocide, exploitation. But hey, this is long gone now, so let us all focus on present US colonization of Iraq ! lol
CRC
I was just going to ask if we were the neo-Colonialists.
Guess I have my answer . . . at least from the French viewpoint.
I am curious in what way are the American Oil companies benefiting. Remember KBR and Halliburton are not oil companies.
Gort: Someone must think that the oil companies have been benefiting. Have you check oil stock price movement over the last 12-18 months? And Halliburton is an oil service company – into oil "big time" as Cheney would say. Donerail
Gort, the oil companies are trying to build a huge pipeline across the Middle East. Unfortunately, Iraq and Afghanistan were causing problems. You don’t get in the way of big oil companies. They don’t play by the rules. If I can find the articles about this, I’ll post a link. It was quite a while ago.
Anything they can do to control the oil supply will benefit them.