Turn on thread page Beta

What hope for peace in Darfur? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    What should be done to ensure stability in Sudan?

    Leaders from Darfur's fractured rebel movement are to hold their first main day of talks in Tanzania, aimed at finding a common ground.

    The UN envoy to Sudan said he was hopeful talks would lead to peace negotiations with the Khartoum government and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called the coming weeks and months "a crucial period in the quest for peace in Darfur".

    However, divisions within the movement are apparent as an influential rebel leader has already boycotted the discussions.

    Do you think these talks offer any hope for peace in Darfur? Can anything else be done to improve the situation? What should be done ensure stability in Sudan's troubled region? Send us your views.

    Click here to read the full story (on the BBC website)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Doing anything is better than doing nothing about the situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Surely if we just leave it, eventually they'll run out of people to kill?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Journey)
    Doing anything is better than doing nothing about the situation.
    Wot? Like in the 'stan?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I dont get what the hold up is, why is the UN so lame? What the **** does it actually do? Its just as bad as the Leauge of Nations
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    I dont get what the hold up is, why is the UN so lame? What the **** does it actually do? Its just as bad as the Leauge of Nations
    IMO, the UN is exactly like the LON. It has no power. Like they referred to the LON, it's a "toothless tiger".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Probably no hope, but it is none of our business anyway.
    Post colonial Africa has decended into the usual negroidal chaos and savagery that is just the norm for their kind.
    They are their own worst enemy, so to hell with them! Why should we care?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    More to the point; why should we shed blood, spend money, lose even more goodwill for them?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    IMO, the UN is exactly like the LON. It has no power. Like they referred to the LON, it's a "toothless tiger".
    Well this time the UN has the US on board, but the thing with superpowers is (especially under Bush in this case) that they don’t have to listen to the UN if they don’t want to, and the punishments aren’t exactly, and nor can they be, severe for not doing so. I guess that’s just something they have to live with. Despite this, the organisation could still be effective if countries were EVER willing to put themselves out. The whole point of an international community is you work together. But they never bloody do anything because everyone’s scared of actually making commitments which might not directly benefit their home nations. That isn’t the point, I thought the grand ideals for the UN was to serve the race of men as a whole rather than nations anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hengest)
    Probably no hope, but it is none of our business anyway.
    Post colonial Africa has decended into the usual negroidal chaos and savagery that is just the norm for their kind.
    They are their own worst enemy, so to hell with them! Why should we care?
    It is our business its the year 2007 not 1937, Total isolation does not work and what would be the point of the UN a international communtiy which helps resolve problems and around the world.
    In my judgement if this problem is not sorted soon, hope in the UN will eventually disappear.
    Also about "savagery that is just the norm for their kind" shows just how small-minded you are.
    In my better judgement you seem no better to me than a Bitter twisted imperialist.:mad:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Pracitcally the best hope for Darfur is that America takes an interest. I think it's been amply shown time and again that no-one in this world does anything unless America is behind it (or on the receiving end ). No other influential and poweful country seems bothered.

    Of course, if America does intervene it better be careful that people don't accuse it of trying to be the world's policeman etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure- my opinion isn't really backed up with a lot of political knowledge or historical knowledge so sorry if its completly poking the wrong donkey but it seems to me that our interventions never do anyone much good.

    Its awful to see countries pulling themselves apart from within in civil wars where people are treat so inhumanly by the rebel groups and country leaders, we feel as a conscientious nation that we have to step in and put a stop to it... I don't think we ever can and in many cases our interfering leaves the countries and regions in much worse states and the native people suffer even more!

    The only way to stop this is to have complete co-operation and agreement from the various rebel groups- that isn't ever, even by definition, going to happen- they are groups with different beliefs and aren't there to comply with what a higher authority says. I don't know why we believe that suddenly, by jumping into help, the groups will co-operate and all will be peaceful again.

    The countries don't have the control systems that are in place in England, it seems to me that some of the people there don't want conform and in that case the societies won't come into peace until they find it within themselves. I don't see how, unless we take over the running of the countries completly, (which IMO isn't what they need) our imput will help at all- as soon as we help we can't keep it up and things crumble again...

    Like I say this might all be completely ignorant and misinformed- put me straight (as i'm sure you will :p: ) if it is!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    Despite this, the organisation could still be effective if countries were EVER willing to put themselves out.
    The most frustrating thing is that countries say they will do this or that, on the condition that others do the same. If every country stated that (as is what usually happens) - i.e. you chip in and I'll do the same -nothing in reality progresses.

    If two medium powered countries (not superpowers and not weaklings) - e.g. Italy and Spain started the ball rolling, chucked in a few troops, the superpowers would have the incentive to follow as they would have their reputation as "example setters" to stand up to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vesta)
    IMO, the UN is exactly like the LON. It has no power. Like they referred to the LON, it's a "toothless tiger".
    I'm going to recycle your analogy somewhat so that the UN, rather than being entirely hopeless, has the potential to get some new dentures if only it'll take them.

    The UNs main failing is that it is internationally regarded as a 'stick in the mud'; it spoils everybody elses geo-political get rich quick schemes, and reguarly gets in the way of apparently national interests (the cads).

    If the world were to give greater credence to the United Nations as an organisation as well as its 'moral compass', you would soon realise that it would appear to have far more clout. Certainly it can garner together international peacekeeping forces quick enough, but it is emasculated by the illogical G8 dominance of the Security Council.

    Sudan has been a particuarly symbolic touchstone for the United Nations; if it fails here as it has failed in the past, there may be serious questions raised about its international legitimacy. I hope an agreement can be reached, but it needs to be multilateral, and once one rebel leader drops out it looses this edge.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catsmeat)
    I'm going to recycle your analogy somewhat so that the UN, rather than being entirely hopeless, has the potential to get some new dentures if only it'll take them.

    The UNs main failing is that it is internationally regarded as a 'stick in the mud'; it spoils everybody elses geo-political get rich quick schemes, and reguarly gets in the way of apparently national interests (the cads).

    If the world were to give greater credence to the United Nations as an organisation as well as its 'moral compass', you would soon realise that it would appear to have far more clout. Certainly it can garner together international peacekeeping forces quick enough, but it is emasculated by the illogical G8 dominance of the Security Council.

    Sudan has been a particuarly symbolic touchstone for the United Nations; if it fails here as it has failed in the past, there may be serious questions raised about its international legitimacy. I hope an agreement can be reached, but it needs to be multilateral, and once one rebel leader drops out it looses this edge.
    I don't think we should follow the UN's "moral compass" when the UN is a supposedly democratic body dominated by members who are undemocratic. And a UNHRC that is happy to have members who themselves are human rights abusers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I don't think we should follow the UN's "moral compass" when the UN is a supposedly democratic body dominated by members who are undemocratic. And a UNHRC that is happy to have members who themselves are human rights abusers.
    That's exactly why the entire nature of the UN needs re-addressing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catsmeat)
    That's exactly why the entire nature of the UN needs re-addressing.
    Couldn't agree more. It should be a body that you have to meet requirements to gain entry to - along the lines of the EU. A club worth being allowed to join but which you need to work to join. At the moment it has no moral authority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The whole of this conflict on a very basic level is basically Muslims vs Christians, and considering Religion I don't there'll ever be peace there. Just look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Granted, Kosovo and those place got sorted but it took a while and a whole of bombing and military interference from our part.

    But as they so eloquently put it in Blood Diamond:

    TIA - This Is Africa. How many current on-going conflicts are there? Far too many to count. I don't think there'll ever be peace.

    Edit: UniOfLife, I really have a hard time believing that America is going to step in. Look what happened in Mogadishu. And they're weary man, it's costing a whole lot of money and manpower just to keep the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan under control, and look how well that's going. And America's economy has taken a beating, 2 USD to every 1 GBP? No America aren't going to do anything, they couldn't care less I think.

    On a side note as well, I do think that had Africa remained under colonial rule (slavery abolished of course) things would be much better and would be running much more smoothly down there.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristo)
    The whole of this conflict on a very basic level is basically Muslims vs Christians, and considering Religion I don't there'll ever be peace there. Just look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Granted, Kosovo and those place got sorted but it took a while and a whole of bombing and military interference from our part.

    But as they so eloquently put it in Blood Diamond:

    TIA - This Is Africa. How many current on-going conflicts are there? Far too many to count. I don't think there'll ever be peace.
    To blame it simply on religion is, as ever, far too simplistic. After all Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan. It's more about money and power than religion.

    (Original post by Cristo)
    Edit: UniOfLife, I really have a hard time believing that America is going to step in. Look what happened in Mogadishu. And they're weary man, it's costing a whole lot of money and manpower just to keep the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan under control, and look how well that's going. And America's economy has taken a beating, 2 USD to every 1 GBP? No America aren't going to do anything, they couldn't care less I think.

    On a side note as well, I do think that had Africa remained under colonial rule (slavery abolished of course) things would be much better and would be running much more smoothly down there.
    You can hardly spend a paragraph explaining why America can't get involved in Darfur and then conclude that they simply don't care.

    And you may well be right that America will not get involved, but that is the best hope for an end to the genocide in Darfur.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What I meant was that with all their own troubles they couldn't care less about the troubles of a country as poor and insignificant (look that's horrible but it's the truth, they don't have much of a say in world politics) as Sudan.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.