![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Honzo October 11th, 2005
The following came up at Hippy Dave’s : Bolton and Sudan
At first it seemed like John Bolton had participated in blocking a UN briefing on the situation in the Sudan which is worsening (thanks to Dave
for the link). However, after reading the article, he blocked it not
because he is a bad person or does not care about what it happening,
but because he thinks that something needs to be done about the situation and not just more of the same idle talk.
Bolton said: “How many officials of the secretariat does it take to have a briefing?”
He added that council members already know that the situation in the
Darfur region continues to deteriorate, and added “real action needs to
be taken.”According to media reports, The U.S. is demanding tougher measures against Sudan and not just condemning statements by the UN.
Bolton was quoted as saying: “We have to consider whether the
sanctions we have in place are working and whether other measures
should be taken.”
This is what I want from my ambassador to the United Nations. More action and less talking.
Update: I guess I need to be clear that it is too early at this stage to congradulate Bolton. He has only said
the right things so far. I (and everyone) need to suspend judgement on
this case until we see if he tries to have something else done,
something that actually helps the situation.
- News
- Comments(4)
But how does this lead to action? I can appreciate if he wants more
than just talk, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad to talk about it.
Sometimes talk can lead to action.
I just can’t see the leap in logic that he’s making. Talking about it may not do much, but blocking talks does even less.
That is where seeing what the next step is. He might do several things.
Blocking can call attenting to the situation - it has mine.
It is a little too early to prejudge this action yet, we need to see
where this goes before we can. I think it is a good stated attitude and
first step.
I completely agree with Kyle.
It is also hard for me to buy Bolton’s arguments when he aligned with
China - who have a clear financial (oil!) interest in Sudan. On top of
that the Bush administration has put forth much effort to block much of
the action regarding Sudan, first because of their cozy relationship
with the Sudanese governement and then because of their refusal to
support an international court.
Bolton’s refusal to hear a briefing is a slap in the face to anyone who is attempting to get anything done in Sudan.
Kyle said it best: Talking about it may not do much, but blocking talks does even less.
Talking about it may not do much, but blocking talks does even less.
On the surface, yes. But, if it leads to actual progress on the problem, then I am all for it.
Note this part of the article: He added that council
members already know that the situation in the Darfur region continues
to deteriorate, and added “real action needs to be taken.”
Partianship aside, this should give people hope that actual progress is on the way.