« Covering Up for the SPD: The Sueddeutsche Zeitung Unleashes its Full Arsenal of Bias | Main | Austrian Politician: Criticism of the USA has Become Fashionable Again »


...yeahhhhh UN and Germany will find the right way to handle this "problem".

they will send "bretzel" "sauerkraut" and "oktoberfestbier" to slow down the killers.


"Vor diesem Hintergrund erinnerte Wieczorek-Zeul noch einmal an die zentrale Bedeutung der Menschenrechte. "Ihre Respektierung, ihr Schutz und ihre Förderung nehmen in der Politik der Bundesregierung einen zentralen Stellenwert ein, denn sie sind eine zentrale Voraussetzung für Frieden, Stabilität, Gerechtigkeit und nachhaltige Entwicklung in der Welt", bekräftigte die Entwicklungsministerin."

JAAAWOHLL!!!!! ,Frau Wieczorek-Zeul, das haben wir im Irak auch gesehen. Auch Herr Chirac hat da nur "Kopfschütteln" zugesehen.

Diese Veranstaltung der deutschen Entwicklungsministerin wirkt wie der "Todeskuss der Mafia" für die Opfer des Völkermordes.

Human Rights Watch sieht die derzeitige Lage im Sudan übrigens so.


Bemerkenswert ist übrigens auch ein Statement der Sudanesischen Regierung. Nicht wegen des Inhaltes, sondern wegen genau derselben zuckersüßen Sprache wie die der deutschen Ministerin.


vom Außenministerium der Republik Sudan bezüglich der Resolution des
Weltsicherheitsrates Nr. 1564

Während die Regierung der Republik Sudan ihr Bedauern über die am 18.09.2004 herausgekommene Resolution des Weltsicherheitsrates Nr. 1564 äußert, stellt sie fest, dass sie weitaus mehr, als einer ihrer Partner darum besorgt ist, die Sicherheit und Stabilität in Darfur wiederherzustellen, die Einhaltung der Gesetze zu sichern, sowie die Menschenrechte zu schützen. Weiterhin stellt sie hiermit fest, dass sie ihre Bemühungen dahingehend fortsetzen wird, um ihre politischen und moralischen Verpflichtungen zu erfüllen. ..."

Well, to actually do something about the so-called problem in Sudan, one would have to be thinking in terms of black and white or "right" and "wrong" which is highly inappropriate in today's world where things are discussed in a sober and deliberate way. If there is this so-called genocide in Sudan, we must first determine the root causes of the alleged aggression. The militants, or more accurately, activists, must have reasons for their anger and apparent hostility (perhaps humiliation, social injustice?). Once their motivations are clearly and precisely determined we can then balance their needs with the needs of the so-called victims and work towards a political solution to the problem. But doing this takes time, you can't rush (Note: one calendar year is considered rushing) these things.

The impotence of the left ist stunning.

Sleepy, what's going on in Darfur can't be defined as genocide. That is something the world can only know after the fact. That is, we can look back in a year or two and if there are no Darfurians left in Darfur, then Chirac and Fischer will probably agree that its genocide. Hard luck on the Darfurese, of course.

I think that after another 100,000 draths or so the German Foreign ministry might be ready to deliver a stiff aide-memoire to the Sudan government asking that they cease and desist. The German government will need to raise it's payments to the German health ministry to cover the cost of treatment for occupational injuries caused by hand-wringing.

And that will be all that happens.

I just had this ridiculous thought - but it seems fashionable to compare my president with a certain German dictator who was directly responsible for genocide. Is or is Fischer not responsible for genocide if he chooses not to see that it is stoped? What definition should one apply to him for allowing the slaughter of innocent civilians to go on, i.e. not stop it?

Remember the share Armani-Annan has in the massacres of Rwanda!

OK, Fischer should be criticized for not doing more. But what has Colin Powell done to stop the massacre? Nothing but empty threats...

What do you want Colin Powell to do exactly? If the US goes in there without mulitlateral ( meaning Germany and France) support, then it only proves just how wicked and evil the Americans are.

So please describe what Powell should be doing righ now.

Thank you.

The statement of Heidemarie Wiezcorek-Zeul actually makes a lot of sense if it is run through a word processor and "human rights" is replaced with "political correctness".

If Heidemarie Wiezcorek-Zeul or anyone else in the current government would really care for human rights then they would call for the UN Human Rights Commission to suspend members whose human rights record doesn't qualify them for a seat there - such as Sudan. But Heidemarie Wiezcorek-Zeul is all about political correctness, and if Germany called for excluding an Islamic regime from an international body, this would destroy the whole interface of multilateralism which was built to appease the Islamic bloc over the recent decade. Sudan is a perfect example of a political correctness blowback against human rights.

But in this case (unlike on Iraq) the German stance is not the major obstacle in the UN - here the elephant in the room is China which has become a major player in Africa. Of course Schröder could pinprick the sluggish giant by selling slbm-capable submarines to Taiwan such as Kohl gave them to Israel - but that again would not be politically correct...


Colin Powell, along with the President, have called the campaign in Darfur "genocide." Whereas, the EU, has typically side-stepped the issue and has not.

This sets the ground for further dispute as to the interpretation of what action is necessary. If the great powers of the Earth cannot agree on what semantics are to be used, then what chance would the UN have in taking the action necessary to halt it? Semantic discussions like this maybe commonplace in the EU : a common definition of chocolate was a long-heated debate, but this confusion is not the threat of serious action that the world community should be sending to the Sudanese perpetrators.

To me, this just sounds like another typical demonstration to the ineffective and sometimes childish tactics of several member countries of the EU: pretentious notions of German/French soft-power over American power in dealing with Iran's Nuclear Bomb development for example. Laugh, "soft-power", as if there ever was such a thing.

Don't mock the USA, with "But what has Colin Powell done to stop the massacre? Nothing but empty threats..." Saddam Hussein mocked the world community at large for over a decade, and now he has only a small prison cell from where to ponder his past activities. This sadly, didn't have the Germans support.

I am confident that any security council resolution put forward by the US and Britain will carry the necessary strong language needed to resolve the Sudanese issue appropriately. I am also confident that France and Germany will oppose any strong language, citing Bush as public enemy number one. This will only have the effect of indecision and permit Sudanese henchmen to further carry on with their genocide unabatedly. And you mock Colin Powell.

Furthermore, make an honest review of the historical UN Security Council resolutions: I think you'll find the US and Britain have done most of the heavy lifting. America lost the most lives in throwing back a Stalinist wacko from North Korea whose son now has nuclear weapons and does so with indignation. Meanwhile, his people starve. Stop and ponder that as well.

Tangent to the topic: Hartmut, it was nice to see you commenting at the

...Rottweiler. (My link didn't work.)

sorry, off topic, aber man sollte es der werten leserschaft nicht vorenthalten...

!!!mögen die spiele beginnen!!!



...und da capo!!!


I suppose I must be one of the despicable Americans because, you see, I believe America should do nothing in Sudan.

That's not because those being slaughtered don't deserve help. They do. Just like the 800,000 murdered in Rwanda deserved to be helped.

The problem is this. The international community, which includes the US, saw Rwanda happening and cries went up! "Someone should do something to help those poor people!, they said. And then they looked slyly to right and left, to see if anyone was stepping forward. Eventually, after the massacre had reached astronomical proportions, a few stirred themselves and the genocide ended, but, through no virtue of the West. Clinton was very generous and apologized for doing nothing for so long. He was always very good at apologizing for the US' failures.

Not long afterwards, a new genocide cropped up, right in Europe's backyard. Cries went up, again. "Someone should do something to help those poor people!" And, again,all looked slyly to see who would step forward. And long did they look, too. Many, many months would pass before Clinton and the US would stir. Yet, without them, no one else would step forward.

What America learned there was that Europe would contribute little to settle matters, even when they were most affected and most concerned. The US carried most of the burden while Europe exercised its various vetoes on what should not be done. However, Europe was so grateful that.... ok, that was a joke. Europe wasn't really grateful at all.

9-11 rolled around and the US was mightily angered. When she cast her eye upon Afghanistan and called to her friends and allies they rushed to join her. Yah, another joke. France insisted upon vetoes before she would commit. Italy said she'd commit no troops at all to such a venture. Some allies really DID help, however, to the best of their ability. But most of Europe stayed home until the issue was settled. But, let's not pretend that we had the support of most of Europe, or the world. America was expected to show restraint, to stoically bear the murder of its citizens and stand shoulder to shoulder with the world and.... do nothing. Didn't work out that way.

Iraq? Ok, many have no understanding of why the US should have gone there. I'll state my own belief that removing Saddam alone was reason enough. The US and UK had maintained armies and air forces their for TEN YEARS already to restrain Saddam. Many wish to overlook that France, Germany, Russia, and the UN were profiting mightily in the face of 'sanctions'. Indeed, they were agitating to REMOVE all sanctions. And the US and UK could then do..what? Withdraw? That would have suited France and Russia, surely. A US retreat! Would could be more gratifying. Didn't work out that way. There's no need to go into the various affronts the US received from her 'allies' over Iraq. Let's just say that the US learned a few more new lessons.

Now Sudan. We (the US) should not go into Sudan because the world has to be shown, proof-positive, that without the US, nothing is going to happen to change things there. Europe pretends that they'll negotiate to a peaceful outcome. You know, just like with Iran and it's nuclear program. Go for it.

DO NOT ask the US to carry the load again. Besides the fact that we've got our own issues in Iraq (without help from most of Europe), it's time to demonstrate that the pretense of influence without power is a fraud. It's going to take some very ugly episodes, without the US intervening, to make that demonstration.

But, you shouldn't blame the US for the many deaths that will cause. After all, you never blamed yourselves for Rwanda or Srebenica, right?

Who is the UN kidding - they're going to let those people die at the alter of their political views. They refuse to give an individual states action a chance just to prove it.

What they can't grasp is that unilateralism needs to be given a chance, and that it has nothing to do with *multilateralism*. Only a political simpleton would see the two methods as being mutually exclusive.

@thomas hazlewood
Thank you for your comment. That was an accurate and succinct lesson of recent history, almost suitable for teaching in secondary school. Unfortunately, most european teachers prefer to give a different picture, or rather no clear picture at all, of recent history to our children.

>Now Sudan. We (the US) should not go into Sudan because the world has to be shown, proof-positive, that without the US, nothing is going to happen to change things there. Europe pretends that they'll negotiate to a peaceful outcome. You know, just like with Iran and it's nuclear program. Go for it.

This is what will happen in the Sudan. The US will do what they claim we should have done with Iraq. We are going the full multilateral route. We will keep going to the UN. Kofi Annan will look worried before the cameras and speak a lot of platitudes about the international community and the family of nations. He will send fact finding missions.

The Arab states will start complaining that Darfur is simply more proof that the West is fighting Islam (even though the victims tend to be Moslems also.

The Left will claim Bush is doing nothing because Sudan has no oil.

France and China will decide that maction is premature, their oil concessions (that the Left will say do not exist) have nothng to do with it.

Schroeder will make a speech opposing American imperialism.

And the UN will keep talking, and after we have another Rwanda on our hands, everyone will blame the US for doing nothing.


The left is not being as acidic as usual, because Sudan DOES have oil. Most of it does not go on the world market, but is contracted directly to China.

>The left is not being as acidic as usual, because Sudan DOES have oil. Most of it does not go on the world market, but is contracted directly to China.

I know. But I have been confidential told by earnest leftists that the US is doing nothing because Sudan has no oil.

My response is to say that as Sudan's number one export is petroleum, that must be a big surprise to teh Sudanese.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29