September 15, 2004
HEY, IT REALLY IS ALL ABOUT THE OIL:
Powell's Darfur Declaration: Why Foggy Bottom took so long to characterize the Sudanese--and Rwandan--atrocities as "genocide." (Duncan Currie, 09/15/2004, Weekly Standard)
The concern is that using the word genocide initiates responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Approved by the General Assembly in December 1948, the Convention obligates all signatories to stop genocide whenever it occurs. The key provision is Article 8. It reads in part: "Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide."A spokesman for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the New York Times that Powell's declaration was roughly commensurate to invoking Article 8. If so, it would be historic. As Freedom House's Nina Shea has noted, it would mark "the first instance that a party to the 1948 Genocide Convention . . . has formally charged another party with 'genocide' and invoked the convention's provisions while genocide has been in progress."
By the protocols of the Convention, if the United Nations formally uses the term "genocide" in regard to Sudan, it has a legal obligation to act. So far it has not. The Arab League and the African Union, meanwhile, have both claimed there is no genocide in Darfur. The European Union says it has insufficient information to decide.
But the Bush administration hopes Powell's Senate testimony will galvanize Security Council backing for a new U.S. draft resolution on Sudan. The resolution has three main components. First, it threatens oil sanctions if Khartoum doesn't rein in the Janjaweed. Second, it calls for a U.N. commission of inquiry to probe whether the regime and the militias are complicit in genocide. And third, it seeks an expanded African Union security force in Darfur.
According to the Washington Post, Security Council members Germany, Britain, and Spain all support establishing a commission of inquiry. But China and Pakistan, two major importers of Sudanese oil, strongly oppose sanctions, as does Algeria. Beijing has warned it may veto the U.S. resolution.
Should the U.N. route fail, Powell's declaration of "genocide" will make it harder for the United States not to act.
Time for another speech by the President about what the U.N.'s obligations are in the world. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 15, 2004 2:09 PM
But this time, Mr. Bush needs to tell the UN that they are COMPLICIT in the deaths. And that such complicity will be challenged.
Posted by: ratbert at September 15, 2004 2:50 PMUS support for the Shah of Iran, US support for Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war, Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US restraining Israel from taking out the PLO after the fall of the USSR...
All oil.
Why else would the US mess around in that cesspool ?
Dates and rugs ?
Michael:
Iran was to thwart the Soviets and the rest cascades down from there.
Posted by: oj at September 15, 2004 6:23 PMYes, the US and USSR used to fight via proxy in the Middle East, but surely you aren't attempting to claim that American access to ME oil wasn't priority #1 ?
The USSR was collapsing in '90, right after Saddam invaded; if oil wasn't the reason, why go fight him ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 16, 2004 4:07 AMBecause Saddam invaded -- like you said. Had Saddam NOT invaded, no Desert Storm.
Yes, oil is important. No Rhodesian storm soon -- though maybe Mugabe is doing genocide, too.
But Bush should really suprise the world: 1) go the UN with a resolution against Sudan, on Genocide;
2) after UN refuses, Bush should go to Congress.
And ask for a declaration of war -- with the goal being unconditional surrender.
I previously wrote on a Fantasy Bush speech:
http://tomgrey.motime.com/post/314378#314378
(Also just added the fine BrothersJudd to my blogroll).
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 16, 2004 12:31 PM