U.S. Ambassador Blasts U.N. After Failure to Act on Sudan

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

UNITED NATIONS – Clearly shaken by the United Nations’ inability to act on continued atrocities in Sudan, the American ambassador, John Danforth, all but called the world body irrelevant yesterday, questioning whether “this building” on Turtle Bay has any use at all.


The comments by Mr. Danforth came after the U.N. General Assembly’s body dealing with human rights, known as the Third Committee, signaled its intention to vote down a resolution on the situation in Sudan’s Darfur region, in effect shield in Khartoum from any condemnation, and, of course, action against it.


“One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly on days like this,” Mr. Danforth said. “One wonders, if there can’t be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle, why have this building? What is it all about?”


His outburst came after the Third Committee delayed until today a vote on the resolution, co-sponsored by 39 democratic-oriented nations including America, which expressed “grave concern” about the human rights situation in Sudan. The African group already decided to vote for a “no action” motion, which in effect means a shield for Sudan against condemnation. Most of the voting bloc of Third World countries, known as the Group of 77, and the Organization of Islamic States, are expected to support the no action vote today.


Many in the opposition felt that such resolutions are being used selectively as a political tool, Algeria’s ambassador, Abdallah Baali, told The New York Sun. “More and more the question of human rights is used for political reasons against some particular countries in a selective way, where there are countries where human rights are clearly abused” and are not condemned, he said.


But for Mr. Danforth, who became the U.N. ambassador after serving as the Bush administration’s point man on the Sudan peace process, the question clearly had to do with one of the world’s worst human rights situation currently.


He said yesterday’s delay of voting, which was supported by 92 nations, with only 67 voting against, and 12 abstentions, “telegraphed” that today the committee will turn down the resolution.


“It’s going to be inaction, it’s going to be condoning atrocities, it’s going to be condoning the status quo,” he said. “But most importantly it’s going to be failure to support the people of Sudan, who are suffering terribly and have suffered for a very long time. And the message from the General Assembly is very simple and it is: ‘You may be suffering, but we can’t be bothered.'”


His exasperation came after the Security Council under Mr. Danforth’s presidency went last week to Nairobi, Kenya, where it held a rare session intended to push a peace agreement between rebels in the south of Sudan and the government in Khartoum.


In only the fourth session to take place outside of New York since the 1950s, the council passed a resolution that supported a memorandum of understanding, promising a future peace deal between the two sides. The resolution, however, failed to add pressure on Khartoum to stop the atrocities in the western region of Darfur. In fact, critics noted that other than a vague reference to previous resolutions, it did not even mention the threat of sanctions against the Sudanese government.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use