Genocide Treaty

Busman747

Busman747

Always EVIL within us
Tackler
There was a VERY small report in todays rag that has left me confused, perhaps someone may know more! It reads as follows:

Oxfam yesterday urged Tony Blair to get George Bush to sign a treaty to stop a repeat of the Rwanda genocide.
Blair flies to New York next month to discuss the agreement at a U.N. summit. Oxfam claims the U.S. will BLOCK the treaty which would oblige nations to stop genocide. One million died in Rwanda in 1995.


WHY would a country such as the U.S.A. consider blocking such a move?

Nations that persecute minorities are not likely to take notice of "obligations" surely?

and WHY was it not given more coverage and explanations in the press or is Madonna's wrist more important?

Can anyone enlighten me please?
 
I don't know the answer Busman.

The United States involvement in World affairs seems to be dictated by how rich a country is before it deems itself interested enough to get involved though.
 
I saw the same piece of 'rag' too. How in this day and age countries such as USA, Brazil, Russia and India want a 'watered down' Treaty against such atrocities dumbfounds me :(
 
Tinkerbelle said:
I saw the same piece of 'rag' too. How in this day and age countries such as USA, Brazil, Russia and India want a 'watered down' Treaty against such atrocities dumbfounds me :(
Click to expand...

New info Tinks, Whats this about Brazil, Russia and India? Can you remember what was said? Are they also not in favour? Must be a different rag, do you have the info available?
 
I might be wrong but what you see here is world power politics. For the UN to effectively police the third world and I include south America in this statement from Genocide would cost the US billions of Dollars in Aid contributions alone. This money along with the Millions of US Dollars still owed to the UN will have to be sourced from the US Federal Budget. The US is in deficit to the tune o $400 Billions and the National debt is around $ 8000 Billions. The US would be forced to cut spending on arms and the war on terror.

The second reason is world power. The US would be handing the UN control of world conflict management. Yes, I did say world conflict management? Nobody wants to see another Rwanda or the ethnic cleansing like that seen in the Balkans, but you are expected to accept that the mass murder of children takes place across Brazil? Yet the death of one innocent man brings condemnation of the UK. And what about the starvation of an entire under class of a nation like that seen on the African continent recently as well as the murder and rape of a cultural underclass like we’re seeing in Zimbabwe.

Forgive me but I am at a loss as to your point? Does this really matter, after all it’s only politics and while we put up a hue and cry the world forgets these people and moves on to another crisis of its own making. I am not belittling you concerns but do you think that another big book signed by the worlds so called leaders will make a difference on the ground. Tonight hundreds of thousands of people will die from hunger, cold, murder and political and religious indifference across the continental US, Europe and the former Soviet Union. Millions will die from the same political and religious indifference across the third world. If the world’s leaders sign this document and produce the funds needed to combat Genocide across the world nothing will change because you can’t change political and religious indifference with good will and money. We can’t stop Aids in Africa let alone Genocide.
 
Wow this is knock the USA time on these threads just recently first 9/11 now genocide in Rwanda.... Ok you may belive 9/11 was a massive plot to make George Bush look good and the muslims to take the blame, could be fessable if you think that, hey who said the Telly tubbies weren't real.
But please Rwanda, a war in which the UK continues to play a major part, due to the continued suggestion that it is a war at the least funded and, at the most, actively supported by the Rwandan government, which receives over £30 million a year from the UK through the Department of Foreign and International Development (DFID). This money has been intended to help Rwanda rebuild itself following the genocide of ten years ago in which over 800,000 people died.
When Britain first granted aid to Rwanda a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the two countries in which it was agreed that Rwanda would adhere to certain criteria to be eligible for funding. However, while some of the UK money is being used to fund education and health projects, there have been 9 schools built with that money, local sources know that a portion of it is still being used by the Rwandan government to arm rebel Congolese militia groups despite a UN weapons embargo and an agreement by the Rwandans to withdraw all troops from eastern DRC. What has the UK done about it , absolutly squat. But hey lets not let that cloud our Judgement of issues lets make sure that oxfam gets involved, you know the charity that was imbezeling funds from Africa, which was pointed out by the USA now they are going to be bipartisan in there support.
 
I personally didn’t intend to knock the US, more to point out the futility of such an undertaking. But your quite right in that Britain as played its part, and continues to serve it own self purpose as every other nation state with a claim to power in its sphere of interest and or influence. None of those seeking this agreement have clean hands and in that I include our collective religious intuitions………
 
Last edited:
Doug said:
Tonight hundreds of thousands of people will die from hunger, cold, murder and political and religious indifference across the continental US, Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

I'd need to see some figures to believe that statment I'm afraid, it seems to be massively exagerated.

I too am not knocking the U.S., just stating a fact that where they choose to spend millions of pounds in overseas conflicts seems to be determined by what they can get out of the place, and Rwanda or Zimabwe doesn't figure as highly as Iraq or Kuwait did.
 
garinda said:
I'd need to see some figures to believe that statment I'm afraid, it seems to be massively exagerated.QUOTE]

Accepted, I may exaggerated by saying hundreds, but certainly thousands will……….if you still can’t believe that then I would ask you to open your mind first, then your eyes……………No offence intended.
Click to expand...
 
No offence Doug I deal in fact, and don't have to resort to artistic licence to make my point.

My eyes are always open by the way, except when l'm winking.;)
 
Bazf said:
Wow this is knock the USA time on these threads just recently first 9/11 now genocide in Rwanda....
Click to expand...


Knock USA ......... OMG :eek: heaven forbid ..... would we?

Stop playing the nation of victims Bazf I quoted more than the USA that was against the treaty! When atrocities happen we are all in the sh ...... mire as deep as each other!
 
Artistic licence, Politics is wrought on the very foundation of Artistic licence. If we open our minds and allow our eye’s to see just how weak those foundations are. Severe poverty in the US, Europe and the former communist block is enormous and for the most part well hidden. But hey, not on our door step eh? We can always look the other way rather than face our own Skeletons, fact or fiction?
 
garinda said:
I too am not knocking the U.S., just stating a fact that where they choose to spend millions of pounds in overseas conflicts seems to be determined by what they can get out of the place, and Rwanda or Zimabwe doesn't figure as highly as Iraq or Kuwait did.
Click to expand...

And in Somalia... what did they have? oh and lets not forget the oil in Afganistan, If you look at Zimabwe what has that got to do with the USA its an ex British colony, as is half of Africa. Why did we go to the Falklands... possability of Oil?

US named in genocide treaty row
Stop playing the nation of victims Bazf I quoted more than the USA that was against the treaty! When atrocities happen we are all in the sh ...... mire as deep as each other!

Doesn't name any other country in its headline or am I missing something?
 
The USA would have loved to have created a puppet, western friendly government, in the Middle East, even as far east as Afghanistan, sadly for them this doesn't look likely, especially in Iraq. The 'freedom' given to the Iraqis may result in a more draconian, Muslim controlled state than they had under Saddam.

The USA aren't worried about Zimabwe, and the terrible human rights abuses there, because it's a former British colony? Didn't stop them invading Greneda, a member of the Commonwealth.
 
Like Bazf, I too am very tired of the USA being blamed for every damn thing that is wrong in the world. If everyone in the UK is so worried about Zimbabwe then go in and sort the bloody job out. Or, let the French go in and sort it out, they're not doing anything for the rest of the world at the moment are they? Well, have they ever? There has never been a more generous country than the USA in the history of the world, yet people can't wait to complain about almost everything this country does. Anytime they do anything they are 'interfering' and any time they don't do anything they are 'insular and couldn't care less about anyone else.' Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Of course countries look after their own interests. Don't we all? Why should America be any different? Time to wake up and smell the bloody coffee.
 
JohnW said:
Like Bazf, I too am very tired of the USA being blamed for every damn thing that is wrong in the world. If everyone in the UK is so worried about Zimbabwe then go in and sort the bloody job out. Or, let the French go in and sort it out, they're not doing anything for the rest of the world at the moment are they? Well, have they ever? There has never been a more generous country than the USA in the history of the world, yet people can't wait to complain about almost everything this country does. Anytime they do anything they are 'interfering' and any time they don't do anything they are 'insular and couldn't care less about anyone else.' Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Of course countries look after their own interests. Don't we all? Why should America be any different? Time to wake up and smell the bloody coffee.
Click to expand...

Is that Nicaraguan coffee?

Seriously, I'm not getting on your backs, just stating a fact. Except for the demployment of small special forces in places such as Lebanon, Greneda, Panama, Hati and Bosnia, American involvement in more costly wide scale wars, has been determined by stategic position, or the oil wealth of the country.
 
garinda said:
Is that Nicaraguan coffee?

Seriously, I'm not getting on your backs, just stating a fact. Except for the demployment of small special forces in places such as Lebanon, Greneda, Panama, Hati and Bosnia, American involvement in more costly wide scale wars, has been determined by stategic position, or the oil wealth of the country.
Click to expand...

I believe I just said that, yes, countries do look out for their own interests. Why shouldn't they? We need the oil to keep the wheels of industry turning. If we go bust, so does most of the rest of the world because we're the ones that buy much of what they manufacture. Also, if we go bust, we won't be able to buy any oil, so what will happen to the nations that are presently screwing the crap out of us with inflated oil prices? Well, do I really care?:rolleyes: So it's not only important for America. However, America's presence in the middle and far east is costing an absolute fortune, partially responsible for our massive national debt. We were not doing too badly prior to all this crap. Can someone please explain to me, I know I'm old and a little slow on the uptake, where is the profit for us in this mission? More funds leave these shores in the name of 'charity and aid' than any other nation in the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to start looking at that and giving some credit rather than seeking out causes for complaint. Does anyone know what these oil rich Muslim countries hand out, if anything, in the way of aid to the less fortunate in the world? In fact, what has any Muslim country ever done for any other part of the world? Anybody......................?
 
In answer to one of your questions, the Red Crescent, the equivalent of the red cross, does a lot of humanitarian work throughout the world and not just in Muslim countries.

In answer to your other question regarding the war in Iraq and it's merits in relationship to your national debt, perhaps you should ask your own government. I'm not being flippant in that answer John, perhaps you can tell us what the man in the street thinks about American loss of lives and the financal cost, versus the benefits gained by your country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top