Latest news with #LindaThomas-Greenfield
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
US vetoes UN call for immediate ceasefire, aid access in Gaza
US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield casts a veto vote, at UN headquarters in New York, US, February 20, 2024. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article The United States vetoed a UN Security Council demand on Wednesday for an "immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire" between Israel and Palestinian militants Hamas in Gaza and unhindered aid access across the enclave. "The United States has been clear we would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza," Acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council before the vote. "This resolution would undermine diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire that reflects the realities on the ground, and embolden Hamas," she said of the text that was put forward by 10 countries on the 15-member council. The remaining 14 council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. Israel has rejected calls for an unconditional or permanent ceasefire, saying Hamas cannot stay in Gaza. It has renewed its military offensive in Gaza - also seeking to free hostages held by Hamas - since ending a two-month ceasefire in March. Gaza health officials said Israeli strikes killed 45 Palestinians on Wednesday and Israel said a soldier died in fighting. A humanitarian crisis also grips the enclave of more than 2 million people: Famine looms and aid has only trickled in since Israel lifted an 11-week blockade on May 19. No aid was distributed by the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation on Wednesday as it pressed Israel to boost civilian safety beyond the perimeter of its so-called secure distribution sites after a deadly incident. The GHF said it has asked the Israeli military to "guide foot traffic in a way that minimizes confusion or escalation risks" near military positions; develop clearer guidance for civilians; and enhance training to support civilian safety. Hospital officials have said more than 80 people were shot dead and hundreds wounded near distribution points in a three-day period from Sunday, including at least 27 killed on Tuesday. Locals said Israeli soldiers opened fire on the crowd on Tuesday that massed before dawn to seek food. The military has denied this, but acknowledged that troops fired at "suspects" who ignored warning shots and were approaching their lines. "Our top priority remains ensuring the safety and dignity of civilians receiving aid," said a GHF spokesperson. 'DELAYS AND DENIALS' The new aid distribution process - currently from just three sites - was launched last week. The UN and other aid groups say the model, which uses private US security and logistics workers, militarises aid. Ahead of the UN Security Council vote, UN aid chief Tom Fletcher again appealed for the UN and aid groups to be allowed to assist people in Gaza, stressing that they have a plan, supplies and experience. "Open the crossings – all of them. Let in lifesaving aid at scale, from all directions. Lift the restrictions on what and how much aid we can bring in. Ensure our convoys aren't held up by delays and denials," Fletcher said in a statement. The UN has long-blamed Israel and lawlessness in the enclave for hindering the delivery of aid into Gaza and its distribution throughout the war zone. Israel accuses Hamas of stealing aid, which the group denies. The newly created GHF said on Tuesday that it distributed more than seven million meals since it started operations a week ago. GHF Interim Executive Director John Acree urged humanitarians in Gaza: "Work with us and we will get your aid delivered to those who are depending on it."
Arab News
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Sudan's crisis and the sound of international silence
Two official statements that were issued last week reflect the international community's position on the crisis in Sudan. One was from the G7 foreign ministers and the second followed the London conference on Sudan, which included participants from Western, Arab and African countries, alongside major international and regional organizations. While both statements called for a ceasefire, the protection of civilians and unhindered humanitarian access, they differed significantly in tone and approach. The G7 statement used strong, direct language and placed clear blame, particularly on the Rapid Support Forces. This offered a clear message that the Sudanese army has been able to gain some sort of legitimacy within Western countries. In contrast, the London conference joint co-chairs' statement was more diplomatic and vague, avoiding direct accusations or outlining real enforcement mechanisms. In my view, both models fall short: one talks tough but offers no tools for change, while the other hides behind process and delays. Both approaches also reflect a broader failure: that of managing the crisis instead of resolving it, while ignoring the deep suffering of the Sudanese people. These are not the first documents issued since the war erupted in April 2023. Rather, the international community is merely continuing its familiar pattern of hesitant and superficial engagement. Former US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield last year described the situation in Sudan as a 'man-made' catastrophe and expressed 'shame' over the continued suffering of civilians without decisive international action. This failure also reveals confusion among world powers about the nature of the Sudanese crisis, which has moved beyond being just a humanitarian emergency. It has become a sharp reflection of the absence of international will when it comes to crises in African or developing countries. Sudan has been abandoned before. The tragedy of Darfur is one example. History is now repeating itself under a new name and amid a new silence. The international community is merely continuing its familiar pattern of hesitant and superficial engagement Areig Elhag It is painful that, when Sudanese people flee their country in search of safety, they are met with closed doors and indifference, while there is little international pressure on those responsible for the war. Even when accepted as refugees, they remain unsafe, exposed to violence and theft, as seen in refugee camps in Ethiopia. While the world pours resources and attention into other conflicts, Sudan is pushed into the shadows. There are many reasons for this silence. Many believe the international focus shifted toward more 'visible' wars, such as those in Ukraine and Gaza (the Gaza war started after Sudan's war), making Sudan less of a priority. These wars have drawn extensive media and political attention. In comparison, Sudan's pleas, mainly voiced through UN agencies, have received little serious response. In today's world, it seems that attention and aid depend not on the level of suffering, but on how loud the crisis is politically. This is especially disturbing when all the signs of a catastrophe are already there: famine, mass displacement, sexual violence and ethnic cleansing. Yet the world still looks away, as if Sudan does not qualify as a crisis that is worth acting on. As a Sudanese myself, that forces me to ask some reasonable questions: Is there discrimination in how humanitarian crises are treated? Is global solidarity conditional on race, geography or political convenience? We must name this for what it is: aid discrimination, selective empathy or, simply, racism. Last September, at the UN General Assembly, I interviewed Djibouti's Foreign Minister Mahmoud Ali Youssouf. Reflecting on the discussions at the summit, he and other African leaders expressed concern that African issues are not treated as a priority. 'Even though all countries are equal, the agenda is often shaped by the interests of Western powers,' he said. This sentiment reflects a broader frustration: many Africans feel that the West lacks a clear and respectful vision for its relationship with the continent. For Africans, especially Sudanese, true justice and democracy require treating every life with equal value regardless of geography. It seems that attention and aid depend not on the level of suffering, but on how loud the crisis is politically Areig Elhag Take Sudan as an example. According to the latest UN data, this African country is currently facing one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. About 25 million people, half the population, urgently need assistance. Some 25.6 million face acute food insecurity, including 8.5 million in emergency conditions. Nearly 13 million people have been displaced, including 8.6 million internally displaced and 3.8 million refugees or returnees. Sudan has become the biggest source of forced displacement in the Horn of Africa. It is also the largest child displacement crisis globally, with more than 90 percent of the country's estimated 19 million school-aged children deprived of formal education. In North Darfur, the situation is even more alarming. There are signs of a looming famine, widespread reports of ethnic and sectarian violence and horrific crimes like rape and murder, all happening without serious international action. Even local emergency response groups, which try to serve communities, are now being targeted instead of protected. In my reporting on Sudan for Alhurra TV, I have spoken with many officials from nongovernmental organizations and UN agencies. They all agree that the humanitarian situation is deteriorating rapidly and that the world's response is far too slow and shallow. Yet G7 countries continue to issue statements about their inability to find a political solution, while offering no meaningful action or initiative. And here lies the great contradiction: the same countries that have slashed humanitarian funding for Sudan are the ones calling for peace and solutions. And without providing pressure, accountability or support. What we are witnessing is not just a political or a humanitarian crisis, it is a moral test for the world. If silence continues to be the international response, then we must rethink what solidarity, justice and even humanity really mean.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hobbling USAID could worsen conflicts and cost US more, former ambassador says
The former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said a vacuum of U.S. leadership could allow nations like China to play a larger role in global affairs which would be detrimental to American security and interests in the world. She also said the hobbling of "soft-power" approaches like the USAID food program will worsen conflicts and ultimately cost the country more in defense spending. Linda Thomas-Greenfield will speak at the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison April 1 where she'll share insights from her experience in foreign policy and how it applies to modeling respect and compromise in policy making. The event is free and open to the public. Thomas-Greenfield most recently served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under the Biden Administration. She has a served under both Republican and Democratic administrations in a variety of roles, including U.S. Ambassador to Liberia, Director General of the U.S. Foreign Service and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Letters: Ukraine minerals deal shameful. Russia is the nation that started war. A native of Louisiana and graduate of Louisiana State University, she received her master's degree from UW-Madison, so her return to the campus will be a homecoming of sorts. Here are five takes from her interview with the Journal Sentinel's Kristin Brey ahead of her speech. The questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity. Question: With USAID and the U.S.'s role in helping feed the world in limbo right now, can you explain for people who are unfamiliar with the organization, and having seen it up close, how USAID makes the world safer? Answer: USAID is our soft arm of power. So we have three arms of power that we project overseas: It's diplomacy, that I represented, it's defense and it's development. And those stools, the legs of those stools are very equal in terms of the impact that they have on the countries we're engaging in. as well as the impact on the United States, on American citizens because American citizens benefit from what USAID does but they also contribute to what USAID has been able to achieve. And for me the soft power that USAID projected was so much more important than any of the legs of this three-legged stool because it costs so much less. So people see billions of dollars, but when we look at the whole scheme of what we spend on international programs, on defense programs overseas, on diplomacy, the aid part of it is very small, but it has a significant benefit in terms of projecting our power and our engagements with other countries in the world. Question: You last visited our state in August to commemorate the the 12th anniversary of the Sikh shooting in Oak Creek. When you were here, you also made a visit to the Wisconsin State Fair. What did you learn about Wisconsin's role in feeding the world? Opinion: As fights rage over DOGE and USAID, farmers battle decades of government failure Answer: Well, it was interesting because I was there to talk about food insecurity and to talk about Wisconsin's role, but I don't think I realized how significant that role was until I went to the fair and how many farmers are engaged in activities that contribute to providing food aid around the world. So Wisconsin is a big player and, for me, being in the food security arena is extraordinarily important. I do think that despite the fact that we have food insecurity, we have enough food to feed the world and Wisconsin is a huge contributor to that. Question: During your confirmation hearing as UN Ambassador, you quoted a Noble Peace Prize winner who said the United Nations is the greatest peace organization ever dedicated to the salvation of mankind's future on earth. But, you noted, that is only true if America is leading the way. If America stops leading the way, what do you predict is going to happen to peacekeeping around the world and our place in the world? (The post of UN Ambassador has not been filled since Thomas-Greenfield stepped down.) Answer: American leadership is part of our inner soul, and it is expected by the countries that we work with. They don't expect the United States to sit on the sidelines. They want us sitting right in the front. And we can't do it alone. We need other countries, we need the UN, but our leadership is really powering all of the other activities of other countries and institutions like the United Nations. When we're not leading, others will step in and lead, but they may not lead based on the rules of the road and the principles. that we hold dear. And they may take the international world order in a direction that will not be in our interest. When we leave leadership vacant, all manners of others will step in to lead. I've heard over and over again, including in my (confirmation) hearing, concerns about the role that China plays and really demand that I work to counter China's power and actions in the United Nations. Us leaving our leadership role vacant is opening the door. It's offering China leadership on a silver platter. They don't even have to work for it. Question: Today with the dismantling of, not even just DEI programs, but the idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Do you have thoughts on that as far as what you've seen, what you've overcome, what you've achieved, and what role any of these institutions have for opening doors versus the quote unquote meritocracy? Answer: It makes me very, very sad because the assumption here is that if there is a DEI program that the people who benefit are not qualified, that we don't merit being where we are. And we all know that that is not true. We know that we have a society that has a history, a deep history of racism and a society in which people of color have not always been given access to the same benefits that others have been given. And so it makes me really concerned and worried and again, sad that this is happening in our country at this time. I don't think that there's anyone who can question my qualifications for being the UN ambassador. Question: You've talked about gumbo diplomacy, which is the idea of sharing a meal and a personal connection to break down barriers during negotiations. And so that sounds like a much better strategy than yelling on Twitter. Is there an example or a story you have of when that worked? Opinion: We welcome tariffs on Canadian and Mexican beef. Here's why. Answer: So, you know, it's not just that the gumbo is a concept, more than a meal. And the concept of gumbo, it's a mixture, it's a mélange of all kinds of ingredients that come from everywhere. And you don't have to have the same ingredients. My gumbo recipe may be completely different from another person's gumbo recipe, but it's about bringing things together and making them work. ... It's not always over a meal. For me, Gumbo's diplomacy is an approach. So I might have a meeting with an adversary and I've been given my two pages of talking points where I have to deal with some very difficult topics. And I have 30 minutes to do it. My staff would always freak out because the first five minutes of that conversation would be, tell me who you are. Where'd you come from? How many children do you have? Where are they in school? Tell me what you like to eat. I'd love to have you over for gumbo. You know, and just have that minute conversation that brings down the temperature and allows you to get to know the person as a person instead of an adversary. And then you deal with the issues and you walk away from the meeting, respecting each other. And I don't always win. I've won a lot, I will say, but I didn't always win. I usually came out of that discussion with a relationship that allowed me to go back maybe a second or a third time to that person and eventually get to where we want to get some kind of compromise. But if the meeting is adversarial from the moment you start, you don't know who the person is other than he or she is your adversary and you have... some differences of views on something, and then you walk out of the meeting and you've not achieved anything and you've not set yourself, you've not set the stage for a second meeting or a third meeting. So for me, that's gumbo diplomacy. If we happen to have gumbo at the same time, it makes it even better. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Thomas-Greenfield to speak at UW-Madison on conflict resolution | Opinion
