Aid groups criticize revised U.N. resolution on Sudan; warn situation is deteriorating

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS, July 30, 2004 (AP) — Aid groups criticized a revised U.S.-drafted resolution on Sudan that tempered the wording of a threat of sanctions against Khartoum if it doesn’t act to stop atrocities in the western region of Darfur.

The Security Council planned to vote Friday on the resolution, which deleted the word “sanctions” but kept the threat of economic action and other measures against Khartoum if it doesn’t disarm Arab militias that have killed thousands in a brutal campaign against black African farmers.

Activists said the resolution wasn’t tough enough and relied too much on the Sudanese government.

“Each step of the way it seems to be getting weaker and weaker,” said Iain Levine of Human Rights Watch, which has accused Sudan of supporting the militias _ a claim the government denies.

Meanwhile, violence continued in Darfur, where at least 30,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million displaced as pro-government militias known as Janjaweed staged a brutal campaign to drive out black African farmers in a 17-month conflict over dwindling resources.

An African Union monitoring team reported that militias “believed to be Janjaweed” had chained civilians together and set them on fire earlier this month.

The United States stressed the final version of the resolution maintained the threat of sanctions if not the word and said they hoped for unanimous approval.

“The initial draft included the word sanctions. It turns out that the use of that word is objectionable to certain members of the Security Council,” U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said. “They would rather use ‘U.N.-speak’ for exactly the same thing.”

France, Spain, Britain, Chile, Germany and Romania agreed to co-sponsor the resolution, giving it a boost.

But Pakistan, China and Russia have argued that Sudan needs more time to end the killings, rapes and pillaging by the militias, and officials said they still had reservations.

The officials from several delegations, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they still expected the minimum nine “yes” votes could be achieved and a veto avoided.

Pakistan’s mission was awaiting instructions from Islamabad but felt the Sudanese government had shown hopeful signs in efforts to stop the violence, said a Pakistani official, who also declined to be identified. Sudanese diplomats could not be reached for comment.

In Kuwait, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters the United States had agreed to change the wording in the draft resolution to make it acceptable to a broader number of Security Council members.

“At the same time, everybody recognizes that pressure is needed or else we wouldn’t get any action at all,” Powell said.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his native Ghana for an African summit, made a separate appeal to the Sudanese government to “abide immediately by its commitments,” to protect refugees from the conflict in Darfur.

A statement from his office said Annan was “gravely concerned about reports of continuing intimidation, threats and attacks against internally displaced persons in Darfur.”

The statement added that “government security personnel” have been threatening internal refugees.

An aid agency who feared identification would harm its effort in Sudan also said the resolution didn’t go far enough in confronting the Sudanese government and warned the international community was “perilously” close to failing in Darfur.

The new draft resolution still calls on Sudan to disarm the Arab militias and would impose an arms embargo on individuals, groups or governments that supply the Arab militias or black African rebel groups.

It requires Annan to report every 30 days “and expresses its intention to consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the (U.N. Charter) on the Government of Sudan in the event of noncompliance.”

The previous text had specifically threatened “the imposition of sanctions.”

While Article 41 does not authorize the use of armed force, it could be used to authorize “complete or partial interruption of economic relations … and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

The Darfur conflict stems from long-standing tensions between nomadic Arab tribes and their African neighbors over water and farmland. Those tensions exploded into violence in February 2003 when two African rebel groups took up arms over what they regard as unjust treatment by the government.