New US threat of action over Darfur seen as serious
March 15, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — After months of false starts and empty threats, the United States finally looks poised to take firm action against Sudan to halt the atrocities in Darfur.
Experts and human rights activists who have long been critical of US inactivity on Darfur said improved US-China cooperation in dealing with global crises coupled with growing impatience over Sudan’s defiance may have created the diplomatic critical mass needed for the crackdown on Khartoum.
The State Department signaled its readiness to act Wednesday by announcing that it would seek a new UN Security Council resolution aimed at forcing the Sudanese government to honor past promises to allow a UN-led peacekeeping force into Darfur.
“It is simply the case that the Sudanese government needs to recognize that the international community can’t stand idly by while people suffer,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.
“We are indeed looking at other options, including options that might require further UN action,” she said.
President George W. Bush’s special envoy for Darfur, Andrew Natsios, meanwhile told several human rights groups in a conference call Wednesday that the administration was preparing its own “Plan B” package of economic sanctions against Sudan, according to a participant in the call.
The announcements came after Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon last week backing away from a deal reached in November to let a 20,000-strong, UN-led peacekeeping force into Darfur.
The letter was just the latest step in a four-year campaign by Beshir to prevent international intervention in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have died and at least two million been left homeless in a civil war in which government-backed militia have been blamed for most of the violence.
The violence has continued unabated despite numerous US appeals, including direct entreaties from Bush and Rice to Beshir, and repeated US warnings that Khartoum will face serious consequences for its defiance.
But Bush has failed to put his words into action, despite having vowed early in his presidency never to sit idly by while another Rwanda-style genocide occurred.
Many analysts attributed the lack of US follow-through to Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq and “axis of evil” foes Iran and North Korea.
“Our position in the world is obviously complicated by what’s gone on in Iraq, making it that much more difficult to mobilize coalitions, no matter how sincere and how substantial our case is against Sudan over Darfur,” said Jonathan Morgenstein of the US Institute of Peace.
US ardor for action was also cooled by hostility from China, a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council which buys most of Sudan’s oil and historically opposes international meddling in internal conflicts that could encourage similar moves over Tibet, Morgenstein said.
But with little prospect for any successful outcomes in Iraq, Bush and Rice have been turning their diplomatic attention to other, potentially solvable, crises.
They have notably worked closely with China in using UN sanctions to lead North Korea into last month’s historic nuclear disarmament agreement and as a weapon to challenge Iran’s nuclear program.
Alex Meixner of the Save Darfur coalition said there were new signs China might be ready for tougher action against Sudan after its ambassador to the UN described Beshir’s latest backtracking on Darfur “disappointing.”
He noted that the November agreement Beshir has reneged on came at a meeting involving the United Nations, European Union, US, Russia, China and African states.
“He’s now not only going back on his word to the US, but also to China, Russia and his African allies,” Meixner said.
One member of a organization involved in Darfur who has spoken privately with US officials recently said he had detected a new determination to act.
“The administration is seeing this as the right opportunity to launch into some of their ‘Plan B’ actions because there seems to be more of an appetite for it overseas,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Natsios was quoted as saying one of the unilateral sanctions Washington could impose is blocking any international transactions with Sudan in US dollars — a step which has proved effective against North Korea and Iran and could badly hit Sudan’s oil dealings.
(AFP)