Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Why don't they call it "genocide" perhaps they are being diplomats, while people die. In my opinion Bolton was not aggressive enough. Now that he leaves we will send some one even more interested in not offending people, while others die.
|
What this really implies is that the
Bush policy towards the civil war and genocide in the Sudan is not aggresive enough....Bolton is only the mouthpiece for the administration, albeit an abrasive and offensive one to many of his counterparts in the UN, which makes consensus-building towards a viable solution very difficult.
As MixedMedia noted...Bush et al have been late to come to the table when it comes to the killings (forget the semantics) and resulting refugees throughout Africa. I agree with her and evidently you as well that we need a more aggressive policy. BUT, we also need a UN ambassador who possesses the necessary diplomatic skills to work with others in the UN, as well as the African Union, to seek and implement a solution.
Bush/Bolton were so concerned about the Sudan, the US was the only UN Security Council member NOT to send our ambassador (or top deputy) on the UN mission to the Sudan this past summer to meet with the govt and rebels on the implementation of a workable peace plan. (Bolton was "too busy" to go....he had a prior commitment to speak at a right wing think tank).
See the UN misison report of June 22, 2006:
http://www.un.org/docs/sc/missionreports.html