Congress confronts Unfair chinese trade practices
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Do you remember who the first member of this adminstration was though? I thought Powell, but I can't swear.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Actually I think it was Weisel that first called it genocide... back in 1999.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
so have the republicans
That certainly aids discussion. So, logic would be if one basically disagrees with the administration, it's always wrong? Same with the next, block anything they are trying to win diplomatically, simply so THEY lose,
about the country or what good they might be trying to accomplish?
Can you see why I like the guy?
I thought I remembered thinking highly of him because of it. Thanks, you are the best googler ever! And I mean that in more than one way.
lolI thought I remembered thinking highly of him because of it. Thanks, you are the best googler ever! And I mean that in more than one way.
HaHa!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
As much as I like Powell... even he was five years late in the declaration.
http://www.shma.com/feb00/sudangenocide.htm
"Last year, many churches and human rights groups began to speak out against the genocide in Sudan and document reports of massacres, government-induced starvation, scorched-earth policies and slavery. On June 16, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution with only one dissent that had been introduced by Representative Don Payne (D-NJ), condemning the government of Sudan for "deliberately and systematically committing genocide." Five days later, the new U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent panel created by Congress, targeted Sudan as an "egregious and ongoing" persecutor of religious believers. A few months later, on October 6, the Administration followed suit and included Sudan in its first designation of "countries of particular concern" for "egregious" religious persecution.
The Commission presented a set of policy recommendations for Sudan in a meeting with President Clinton on October 19. Among the policies, it urged the President to use the bully-pulpit of his office to raise public awareness about them and express American condemnation. It specifically urged him to meet with Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who had written him on July 13, stating he was "haunted by what I know of Sudan," calling it a "genocide" and asking for a meeting "to discuss this urgent matter further." (It was to Dr. Wiesel that President Clinton made a public pledge in April 1999: "I will do my best to make sure that something like [the 1994 Rwanda genocide] does not happen again in Africa.")
Actions in the fall offered some encouragement that American policy would change. On November 9, 1999, several hundred leaders of religious and human rights groups convened in the Senate to set a strategy on Sudan. They launched an international divestment campaign against Talisman Energy (a Canadian investor in Khartoum's new pipeline), supported by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A large interfaith coalition also petitioned for U.S. action on providing food aid, blocking American investments of foreign companies in Sudan, and other initiatives to stop the genocide. The Senate unanimously passed the Sudan Peace Act in late November 1999.
More recently, however, the Clinton Administration appears to be responding to pressure from forces within the business and non-governmental relief sectors that advocate "engaging" Khartoum, rather than treating it as a pariah. This is a perennial foreign policy question: whether to engage in the hope of reforming or to isolate and weaken a government that violates human rights. In this case of ongoing genocide, international sanctions are a moral and political imperative to force Sudan's government to negotiate peace. Pipeline revenues will insulate this otherwise bankrupt regime and allow it to continue to fuel (quite literally) its genocidal war. "
8 years later... a UN force is finally going in...
http://www.shma.com/feb00/sudangenocide.htm
"Last year, many churches and human rights groups began to speak out against the genocide in Sudan and document reports of massacres, government-induced starvation, scorched-earth policies and slavery. On June 16, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution with only one dissent that had been introduced by Representative Don Payne (D-NJ), condemning the government of Sudan for "deliberately and systematically committing genocide." Five days later, the new U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent panel created by Congress, targeted Sudan as an "egregious and ongoing" persecutor of religious believers. A few months later, on October 6, the Administration followed suit and included Sudan in its first designation of "countries of particular concern" for "egregious" religious persecution.
The Commission presented a set of policy recommendations for Sudan in a meeting with President Clinton on October 19. Among the policies, it urged the President to use the bully-pulpit of his office to raise public awareness about them and express American condemnation. It specifically urged him to meet with Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who had written him on July 13, stating he was "haunted by what I know of Sudan," calling it a "genocide" and asking for a meeting "to discuss this urgent matter further." (It was to Dr. Wiesel that President Clinton made a public pledge in April 1999: "I will do my best to make sure that something like [the 1994 Rwanda genocide] does not happen again in Africa.")
Actions in the fall offered some encouragement that American policy would change. On November 9, 1999, several hundred leaders of religious and human rights groups convened in the Senate to set a strategy on Sudan. They launched an international divestment campaign against Talisman Energy (a Canadian investor in Khartoum's new pipeline), supported by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A large interfaith coalition also petitioned for U.S. action on providing food aid, blocking American investments of foreign companies in Sudan, and other initiatives to stop the genocide. The Senate unanimously passed the Sudan Peace Act in late November 1999.
More recently, however, the Clinton Administration appears to be responding to pressure from forces within the business and non-governmental relief sectors that advocate "engaging" Khartoum, rather than treating it as a pariah. This is a perennial foreign policy question: whether to engage in the hope of reforming or to isolate and weaken a government that violates human rights. In this case of ongoing genocide, international sanctions are a moral and political imperative to force Sudan's government to negotiate peace. Pipeline revenues will insulate this otherwise bankrupt regime and allow it to continue to fuel (quite literally) its genocidal war. "
8 years later... a UN force is finally going in...
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Interesting and thanks for googling!
Whoever it was that said Wiesel was probably correct by this. Funny, the previous Congress beat both Powell and Bush to the punch.
Looking at the "Powell and Bush citations" seems a tad different in the 'notes':
In any case, seems that Americans were pretty much at the forefront of calling it what it is.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
well, when you said Cypress was a good googler... I just kind of had to compete for the title of King of all Googlers....
I knew Weisel had been tracking Darfur for a while. He was with Clooney when he went to the UN a couple years ago... so I googled his ass to see if he had made any comments earlier. I AM DA KING!!!
well, when you said Cypress was a good googler... I just kind of had to compete for the title of King of all Googlers....
I knew Weisel had been tracking Darfur for a while. He was with Clooney when he went to the UN a couple years ago... so I googled his ass to see if he had made any comments earlier. I AM DA KING!!!
LOL!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and before anyone says to the contrary... NO... I am not trying to blame Clinton.
I blame everybody. In your own article it said that "business interests" seemed to begin to sway things the other way. Sometimes I start to think that AHZ's rantings aren't really that crazy, other than his racism and anti-semitism. And then I get scared because if I start thinking that, I could become asshat.
Anyway, to Runyon's point that it was America who first called it what it was, who else is going to? Regardless of what Canadians and the French and whoever else say about America, you are not going to find France charging into the middle of a genocide. They didn't do it when we completely fell down on Rhwanda did they? No, they jsut like to feel good about themselves by saying America did this and America did that. All true, and I am the first American to say so.
But, what did you do? That's when it gets quiet.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla... as do I... there is plenty of blame to go around.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
One Would Think Egypt Would Speak?
Not.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186066367980&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Not.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186066367980&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
uscitizen
Villified User
That certainly aids discussion. So, logic would be if one basically disagrees with the administration, it's always wrong? Same with the next, block anything they are trying to win diplomatically, simply so THEY lose,
The bush Administration is trying to accompolish some good ?
Litmus
Verified User
Darla, I am correct. And I all advocate regarding jews is telling them no on the global monocultural theocracratic model that is embodied in their messianic literature. Not gonna happen. Get over it.