Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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.
|
I don't understand your position. If the UN approach is one of slow or no action, and an approach where they rufuse to call what is happening genocide, and we want action. How long do you want our diplomat to play diplomacy games before calling people to task?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again I don't understand. If we took unilateral action, you would say that is wrong. If we work through the UN and the UN fails, and then we call the UN on the failure, you say that is wrong. Seems like a no win situation to me.
Quote:
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
|
Soft shoe diplomacy did not work in Rwanda. Who was the US UN Ambassidore then? Was the US late?
Quote:
|
Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefire, and attempts to contact both the interim government perpetrating the killing and the RPF.
|
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/index.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i frankly an baffled that the un has not already acted: i assume that a major explanation for it is a lack of viable coalition formation. one explanation for that is a breakdown in diplomacy. one factor in that could well have been john bolton.
|
The conflict pre-dates Bolton as UN Ambassidor. But you say he could be the blame for the UN failure??? Help, Help, "I think I am falling through the looking glass". Perhaps Bolton was in Dallas on 11/23/63, what do you think?