New Darfur Sanctions

OP

[OOC]

'To Russia with Love' :love:

[/OOC]

Reply 5

The United States recognises the Chinese wish to applaud mass murderers and support a weak, corrupt and butchering government.

It has done it before, it is doing it now, and most likely it will do it again.

Reply 6

lodzinski

14

russia feels the US's comments are petty and make little in teh way of a point - China is stating that sanctions are not working and that other action is needed, not declaring support for what is happening in darfur.
(ooc) next you'll be harping on about the supposed weapons dealing again yawn(ooc)

Reply 7

The United States doubts either the Chinese or Russian candidate has read the in-depth sanctions and who it effects.

It has added 31 additional companies to and already existing sanctions list, barring them from any dollar transactions within the United States financial system. Of those companies, 30 are controlled by the Sudanese government, and at least one is violating an embargo against shipping arms to Darfur.

The US administration also targeted three individuals by blocking their overseas assets. Two of them are Sudanese government officials, Ahmad Muhammed Harun and Awad Ibn Auf (head of Sudan's military intelligence and security). The third person, Khalil Ibrahim, is the leader of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought United Nations approval for an international resolution to impose a broad arms embargo against Sudan and to bar the Sudanese government from conducting any offensive military flights in Darfur.

Claiming we are crippling the nation is absolutely pathetic, and we find it a grave and untrue offensive remark to be made without due knowledge. This embargo is to reduce the extension of the war, not to harm the people.

The United States suggests to both delegates they should read the embargo before making such empty threats in the international arena, because it is an embarrassment to them and to the body of the United Nations.

We want the conflict to end, whether China does or Russia does is a distinct argument.

We have asked many times, yet the Sudanese government refuses to allow peacekeepers in or stop the flights into Darfur.

But the United States accepts that Russia and China might be against preventing the Sudanese government from flying over Darfur.

They did supply them the equipment to do it.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/world/africa/29sudan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9248337

Reply 8

OP

prufrock

The United States doubts either the Chinese or Russian candidate has read the in-depth sanctions and who it effects.

What a preposterous and arrogant assertion! Does the United States of America make it a habit to treat all nations with such patronising discourtesy? We hasten to reassure the US that governments will, as a rule, take the trouble to read and consider suggestions or resolutions put to them before issueing official replies thereto.

Reply 9

OP

prufrock

Claiming we are crippling the nation is absolutely pathetic,

China kindly requests the US to re-read its previous comments. Nobody has accused the United States of crippling Sudan. We have pointed out that the enforcing of these sanctions by the international community is likely to have a detrimental effect on the health of Sudan's economy.

US

..and we find it a grave and untrue offensive remark to be made without due knowledge.

See above.

US

This embargo is to reduce the extension of the war, not to harm the people.

China has not seen this to be the case in prior experience. Although we are prepared to believe that the US may wish to reduce the extension of the war we do not believe that the methods that the US has chosen to employ to that effect can avoid harming the populace.

US

The United States suggests to both delegates they should read the embargo before making such empty threats in the international arena, because it is an embarrassment to them and to the body of the United Nations.

Neither Russia nor China has issued any threats to the US in this discourse. May we inquire as to what the US delegate refers to?

US

They did supply them the equipment to do it.

Unless the US is prepared to back up their allegations with proof, they cannot make such statements.

Reply 10

Craghyrax

Nobody has accused the United States of crippling Sudan.

In China's first post you referred that the United States' sanctions was "economically crippling" Sudan.

We have pointed out that the enforcing of these sanctions by the international community is likely to have a detrimental effect on the health of Sudan's economy.

The United States believes China to be wrong. The United States had structured the embargo against over a 100 government controlled companies that is supporting the war; thus by formulating an embargo it is serving two purposes:

1. The United States acknowledges the Sudanese President's acts of genocide and will take sufficient action as reasonably possible

2. The embargo inhibits the war by restricting the government's movement -- not the people. We are removing a militaristic threat - we are not forbidding agriculture, or food levels, or anything which directly harms the people of Sudan.

China has not seen this to be the case in prior experience.

The United States wants examples.

Reply 11

Ethereal

19

The UNHCR is concerned about the sanctions. They simply do not work. World history tells us this.

All that happens is the oppressors oppress the oppressed more vigorously because they have less themselves. The only people who lose are the oppressed.

Reply 12

Dempy

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, supports China's objections.

As our glorious nation often has sanctions enforced against us by the capitalist axis of the west, we know that these sanctions are an unjust tool of imperialism.

Reply 13

OP

prufrock

In China's first post you referred that the United States' sanctions was "economically crippling" Sudan...

..which we further clarified and explained in our last post.

US

The United States believes China to be wrong. The United States had structured the embargo against over a 100 government controlled companies that is supporting the war; thus by formulating an embargo it is serving two purposes:

1. The United States acknowledges the Sudanese President's acts of genocide and will take sufficient action as reasonably possible

2. The embargo inhibits the war by restricting the government's movement -- not the people. We are removing a militaristic threat - we are not forbidding agriculture, or food levels, or anything which directly harms the people of Sudan.

By inhibiting trade you are preventing the nation from raising any capital. This will have blanket repercussions across the nation. The sanctions will not succeed in limiting the government's freedom. They will work around it, and the underprivileged and powerless will reap the harm induced.

Reply 14

Craghyrax

By inhibiting trade you are preventing the nation from raising any capital. This will have blanket repercussions across the nation.

The United States accepts this premise, but again believes it to be untrue. Sudan has gigantic supplies of oil which it uses to support its corrupt governmental structure.

Despite years of sanctions, Sudan's economy has been one of the most secure (and increasing) in Africa.

It will have no detrimental effect to the people; but it will serve as a diplomatic symbol of the UN's disapproval, and it will partially hamper how the government wages its war.

Reply 15

OP

prufrock

The United States accepts this premise, but again believes it to be untrue.

As China do not believe the same about the situation, we are not prepared to act on the logic of a perspective we do not hold. We are determined to pursue what we believe is the best approach.

Reply 16

randdom

20

Iran wishes to second the comments by the Chinese reprisentative, as history has shown in many cases sanctioning a country can lead to problems not for the government but for the people of that country. Iran feels that using diplomatic means would be a much more effective mechanism than sanctioning and suggests the USA to reconsiders

prufrock

The United States recognises the Chinese wish to applaud mass murderers and support a weak, corrupt and butchering government.

It has done it before, it is doing it now, and most likely it will do it again.

Iran would also like to draw attention to this comment by the American representative as it is an unprovoked and inflammatory comment we feel that an apology should be issued.

Reply 17

lodzinski

14

I note in the economist article it states that 'America has targeted Sudan's oil business' - now there's a surprise.

Russia would like to remind the USA it has no conclusive evidence of Russia providing weapons to Sudan, and that it should stop making allegations to this effect. Russia has never made threats to the USA and is interested as the why the US feels so threatened.

Reply 18