Genocide Treaty
 

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?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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 :(

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Here you are Busman have a gander at this http://www.itv.com/news/world_1223144.html

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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………

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

[QUOTE=garinda]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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.;)

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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!

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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......................?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

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?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Thank you, John W, for posting some simple home truths on here. The fact is that too many of 'us brits' are becoming like our european neighbours; always whinging and too spineless to do the often costly, but right things that need doing in the world.

I notice in all of the eulogies to that hypocritical scottish garden gnome who popped his clogs the other week there was no mention of the fact that he,as then foreign secretary, sent UK troops into Kosovo, without a UN mandate, but only doing so once the US had been prepared to use it's muscle.The Balkans mess in the 1990's was a European disaster, mainly the reponsibility of the Frogs and the Germans. It was the US (with UK assistance) that finally managed to get it sorted out.

There are two major cess pits in this world; one is called the UN, the other is called the EU. The US, quite rightly, recognises that any UN treaty is not worth a piece of used toilet paper.The entire institution is corrupt from the top down; we have always known that, but even so, the blatant attempts of UN personnel to undermine the US/UK Iraq policy, simply in order that they could continue to line their own pockets from the oil-for-food scheme, beggars belief.

As for a genocide treaty...please, this is just a joke.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Human rights in Saudia Arabia are appalling, in this sumpreme monarchist state, but the West turns a blind eye because they are our 'friends', no military intervention, no diplomatic protest, funny that.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Thats called national sovereignty. Every country is entitled to make it own laws and set its own system of government..if the people don't lie it, then they can always change it. The one rule is they don't threaten anyone else...if they do, then actions may have to be taken.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba,Nazi Germany which also had a democratically elected government, Cuba....................all countries with their own laws where foreign intervention was deemed necessary?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Have you been drinking? Just what are you on about now?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

That is the point I am trying to make. There is no financial benefit gained by this country from the Iraqi war. Just the opposite, it's costing us a bloody fortune. Same with the UK. I'm quite sure the long term mission is to try to provide stable supplies of oil to the west as well as trying to ensure a democracy and better life for the Iraqi people. We are struggling with that at the moment, no secret there. That is why the UK are there also, looking after their own interests and quite rightly so. You know that Europe will benefit just as much as America from any such stable oil supplies but it takes someone to ensure the stability. Anybody can sit on the fence like Switzerland does and proclaim nutrality during all wars. But where the hell would Switzerland be now if Nazi Germany had not been challenged by the Brits and the Yanks. Do you think it would still be the banking capital of the world? France must be laughing its socks off. Let the Brits and the Yanks spend all their cash, we'll just sit back and reap all the benefits for no damned input. I'm quite sure the man in the street in both our countries bitterly regrets the loss of life and also counts the financial cost. Fact is, somebody's got to do it. Fact is, it's always the Brits and the Yanks. Fact is, we make mistakes like everyone else. Fact is, if it wasn't for our two great countries, our world would have gone to hell in a handbasket over the last 80 years. Two great German war machines and/or the threat of Russian supremacy would have ensured that.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Agreed, Middle East stability and oil supply are paramount in this conflict, weapons of mass destuction and bringing human rights to a down trodden people are secondary.

As originally stated, there is selected Western [note, I include 'us', so as not to offend our American cousins,] involvment when it comes to toppling Govermnents and despots like Mugabe.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

We agree. If we can achieve both then we must also agree it will have all been worthwhile.

[/QUOTE=As originally stated, there is selected Western [note, I include 'us', so as not to offend our American cousins,] involvment when it comes to toppling Govermnents and despots like Mugabe.[/QUOTE]

We agree again. I'm quite sure if we were not so stretched with all the other stuff going on at the moment, we may well get around to toppling that b@st@ard as well. If we don't ensure the oil first though, what the hell are we going to fight him with? Bows and arrows perhaps.;)

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Who elected Fedel Castro, Saddam, and Hitler? and who intervened in Cuba? last time I looked it was still a communist state.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Those countries were quoted in answer to countries that had unappetising governments, not necessarily democratic elected.

In answer to one of your questions, Hitler and the Nazi party were democratically elected by the German people in 1932. 37% of the vote made gave the Nazis the most seats, and Hitler ultimate power.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

They're not really governments though are they Garinda? They're dictatorships with the head honcho being a total bloody lunatic. Appeasing them and hoping they will go away does not work as we most certainly found out to our cost with Herr Hitler.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Hitler may have become a dictator, but he was voted in to power democratically.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

So then are you seriously suggesting we should have left him alone?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

No of course not, I'd have been first on the train to the concentration camps.

But back to my original point. Western interference is selective, and not primarily about overthrowing evil dictatorships such as Mugabe's, but more to do with money or strategic gain. On that, from your past posts, we seem to agree.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Yes we do agree and I'm glad it is selective. We have done our fair share of removing evildoers and I would hope we would continue to do so. However, we have to ensure our own wellbeing first or we won't be capable of removing them in the future.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

I can't say I'm glad it's selective, tyranny should be opposed regardless of what we can gain from it.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

this is all a bit out of my league,,but you have all made good points,,
VERY INTERESTING TOPIC,,wish i was a bit more assertive ..

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Granny C don't be daft, your opinion, as is everyone elses, is as just as valid.:)

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

I agree it should all be opposed. However, we can't do everything at once there's quite a bit of tyranny around you know. We're stretched pretty thin at the moment. Of course if some of the other clods in Europe would throw in a bit of help it would be easier don't you think? Why should it always be the Brits and the Yanks? Maybe you could persuade "Oh, so I'm a bin lid" (he says he doesn't like tyrants) to go and depose "Eee bah gum." Hell, if we get these b@ast@rds fighting each other, we could be in for an easy time for a change. ;)

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

No, but what we do, and where we go, is governed by the advantages we as the West can gain, as we have both agreed.

Poorer, or less advantagously placed countries can apparently continue being ruled under leaders that have no concepts of human rights, without so much as a dimplomatic slap never mind military intervention costing millions and millions of pounds, and countless loss of lives.

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Well, we're just going around in circles now, I have never disputed that we look after our own interests first and I think that we should. I really don't think you and I can get any closer on this subject do you?

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

No. End of.:)

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Sorry to labor the point but Hitler never actually won enough votes to be elected Chancellor, In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were: Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”
Since Hindenberg had not received a majority of the vote, however, a runoff election had to be held among the top three vote-getters. On April 19, 1932, the runoff results were:

Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent

Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election, this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.
On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.
So if we say democraticaly elected it would be the same as PB winning in a run off and then declaring hIMself King.... oh He did.:)

Re: Genocide Treaty
 

Yes but he gained enough democratically gained seats in the Reichstag to seize power, a little like PB.

Hope you haven't been having sleepless nights about this.;)