The "United Nations", founded the be a forum for _nations_ to speak has over the decades since her founding become a forum that defends dictatorial rule over nations and prevents nations from asserting their independence.

I wrote about this issue before.

Now Ban Ki-moon, completely ignoring the Nilo-Saharan (African) tribes' right of self-determination which the United Nations are meant to uphold has decided that the United Nations, the forum, ought to take sides. And, surprisingly enough, the UN takes side for the imperialists, as the UN have usually done before, as long as the imperialists are Arabs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100130/wl_africa_afp/africanunionsummitun

In a joint interview with AFP and RFI radio, the UN chief said the United Nations and the African Union had a duty to work for national unity in Sudan and avoid the south seceding.

"The UN has a big responsibility with the AU to maintain peace in Sudan and make unity attractive," he said.

"Whatever the result of the referendum we have to think how to manage the outcome. It is very important for Sudan but also for the region."

"We'll work hard to avoid a possible secession."

Sudan's mainly Muslim north and largely Christian south ended 21 years of civil war in January 2005.

The Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), as the deal is known, allowed the creation of a semi-autonomous government for the south and paved the way for April's presidential, parliamentary and regional polls, and next year's referendum.

Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir said this week that Khartoum would recognise the independence of southern Sudan if it chose to secede in the referendum.

Even the Sudanese dictator is willing to respect the southern tribes right to be independent of foreign (different tribe) rule.

No, Mr Ban Ki-moon, the UN does NOT have a "big responsibility" to keep Christian tribes under the rule of a Muslim dictator. In fact the UN shouldn't even take sides.

There is no "Sudanese nation". There isn't even a country "Sudan". There is simply an artificial area created by colonial powers, first Europeans then Arabs which is home to several nationalities (50% African Nilo-Saharans, 40% Arabs, 10% Cushites approx.). And there is not, technically, an "international law" that forces anyone, least of all the United Nations, to guarantee Arab rule over the non-Arabs in "Sudan" (or vice versa, for that matter).

If the Christian African tribes of the south of Sudan want to be independent, that is THEIR RIGHT. And if the United Nations are not willing to support their right, the UN should admitt that it is useless and shut up.

The Sudanese civil war between the African Christians and their Arab Muslim rulers has cost more than 2 million lives. The UN has at the same time focussed on punishing Israel for surviving a war that cost less than 1% of that number in total casualties.

It was George W. Bush, the known war monger, who managed to get the two sides to sign a peace treaty AND IT WORKED. (George W. Bush also managed to organise a peace treay in Liberia and Barack Obama has reportedly won the peace Novel price for his promise to pursue completely different policies.)

Sudan is still a non-functional country with wounds from a civil war and an on-going genocide (against African Muslims) in the west.

It is time to recognise, even for Ban Ki-moon that this must stop.

The Arab governments themselves do not have the power to control their slaves. Why should the UN do it for them?