BBC World News:

No progress' on Darfur disaster
The UN has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe
The international community is "getting nowhere" with the crisis in the Western Sudanese region of Darfur, the US says.

All parties are "complicit in the disaster", US ambassador to the UN John Danforth told journalists.

He was speaking on Tuesday, after a sobering briefing to the Security Council on the situation in Darfur.

About 70,000 people have been killed and more than two million made homeless as a result of violence between rebels and pro-government militias.

The report on Darfur, written by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaks of a "continued breakdown in law and order" with looting and abductions.


(The two sides) sign agreements which apparently mean nothing at all

Some 22% of children under five in the region are malnourished, it said.

Commenting on the document, Mr Danforth said: "We're getting nowhere with respect to Darfur. We've tried everything."

He added: "The rebels and the government and the militia - all sides - are complicit in the disaster.

"They sign agreements which apparently mean nothing at all."

The civil war began in early 2003, when rebel groups accusing Khartoum of neglecting the region began attacking government targets.


Q&A: Darfur crisis
The government responded by mobilising Arab militias, which have been accused of widespread atrocities.

The two sides have been engaged in peace talks, which led to a ceasefire agreement last month. Observers say it is not being respected.

However on Tuesday, Sudanese Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Mohamed Yusif Abdallah said he expected a peace deal for the region within two months.

The UN security council has already passed two resolutions urging the government to disarm Arab militias.

But aid agencies and human rights groups say they have failed to calm the violence.

mt brother in law is in Sudan now for work and everyday, he is constantly evaluating whether he should get out from the country now before the violence escalates.

But he says it is a sad sight, esp the starving women and children and this crisis is not getting enough attention from the media...

It's so nice to see that we're busy writing reports while tens of thousands of people are dying. Just warms my heart.

Yeah, its really amazing that this is still going on. It seems like there havent even been any significant steps to attempt to stop this disaster. its interesting how fast the world can respond to some issues but how slow it takes them to respond to others.

the UN is as effective during this crisis as it has been during the Rwandan genocide.....it has only one purpose....to assemble a bunch of bureaucrats from different countries to argue and undermine each other.

I can't believe the lack of attention it's getting. Non-blacks, in Africa, are genociding black africans, in africa, for being black! Speaks volumes, all this "we're the underdogs" bollox from Al-Q is being shown up for what it is, absolute garbage.

Anyone catch the Darfur namedrop on Daily Show?

Colin Powell stated that anywhere you go in the world, people know and love the Indy 500.

Jon Stewart: Really? So, you go to Darfur and you're like "Indy 500." And they say, "yes, it's a good race, but seriously, the world is ignoring us here. Help us."

Biggest mention of Darfur on the American media in months!

It's truly unbelievable the delay in Security Council action to protect those suffering in Darfur. The U.N. Commission of Inquiry for Darfur issued its report on January 25, 2005, finding that “crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide.” The Commission “strongly recommend[ed] that the Security Council immediately refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court.”

Is it that difficult for the UN to understand that more delay means a worsening of the humanitarian situation. The U.N. Secretary-General has called “little short of hell on earth".

Last year, a high-level panel established by Mr Annan proposed more than 100 measures to revitalise the UN, he admitted the organization needed to change to the way it operated, I'm sure Darfur is a sad example.

he mis-spelled it.

So how 'bout that Chad? Whats the likelihood that the rebels aren't acting directly as proxies for Sudan? I thought it was expected that rebels usually have to enumerate their grievances before you know, trying to topple the elected government. I have not heard why they oppose the government, but maybe its become the norm for westerners to assume that all African countries have terribly corrupt governments and deserve to be overthrown.

It's so nice to see that we're busy writing on an internet forum while tens of thousands of people are dying. Just warms my heart.

Nothing will happen in the UNSC until the US makes it a priority. Who else has the ability to make something happen internationally? When genocide was occurring in Europe's backyard Serbia, it didn't stop until the US was able to come in and put a stop to it. Europe couldn't even handle it in it's own back yard, how can they or anyone else be expected to make much of a difference elsewhere in the world?

Whats the likelihood of the EU delaying peacekeeping efforts indefinitely because of the current situation? Why bother with peacekeeping if you don't want the possibility of your troops being at risk?

"About 70,000" is probably an understatement. In Sept. 2006, the UN said it was 400,000.


The US will never act. The rebels are Muslim and African, I tend to think America has killed enough of those recently, and we all remember Black Hawk Down.

The EU has already authorized something like 3700 peacekeepers for the border with Sudan. Why not send them in to help out the government?

So let's see:

Sudan, Chad, Somalia, Kenya, the Congo: All present very real immenent, or immediate cases of all out genocide. This represents an area one and a half times bigger than the US, and half of its population.

On the topic of peacekeeping, the Polish defense minister joined those criticising Germany (although indirectly) for refusing to do actual fighting in Afghanistan. Why is that the Netherlands, one of the smallest European countries is the only one in an active combat role in Afghanistan? Will Europe ever be willing to bleed in order to bring stability to other regions of the world?

Some NATO members are being really lazy about Afghanistan indeed. So what was once a not so hard mission is getting worse everyday.

I think Canada's got the right idea. While I wouldn't be suprised if their threat to withdraw is primarily due to Afghanistan being an unpopular engagement at home, there's a reason to it. Why commit lives to an endeavor that your allies have already given up on, and you are unable to turn things around yourself? The US clearly should not have gotten involved in Iraq and instead focused its efforts in Afghanistan, but nonetheless, NATO as a whole has plenty of resources to ensure greater progress.

There is no point to NATO if it can't address issues like Afghanistan--or Sudan for that matter. It's a dying alliance.

It's to protect white people and our oil that brown people are holding for us. Gu-duh.