UN leaning against tough sanctions for Sudan – Britain
By Madeline Chambers
LONDON, Aug 20 (Reuters) – The United Nations Security Council is unlikely to impose heavy sanctions on Sudan even if Khartoum fails to meet the body’s demands to rein in marauding militiamen in Darfur, a senior British official said on Friday.
He also said it would be impractical to expand the mandate of a small African Union force into a wider peacekeeping role. The force is now charged only with protecting ceasefire monitors.
The U.N. Security Council has threatened Sudan with unspecified sanctions unless it shows by the end of August it has made progress disarming Arab militias in the western desert region where more than a million people have fled their homes.
A senior official from Britain’s Foreign Office said council members wanted to show they were serious about getting Sudan to cooperate, although heavy sanctions were not likely.
“There is a range of views in the Security Council, but the natural centre of gravity is not the imposition of heavy duty sanctions on Sudan,” he said.
“There will be a consciousness that for the strength and health of the U.N., it needs to follow up,” he said, adding options ranged from imposing a travel ban or asset freeze to more serious measures, such as a global arms or oil embargo.
Sudan denies that its own forces are in league with the militias, known as Janjaweed, who have burned and looted non-Arab villages in Darfur since rebel groups took up arms in western Sudan last year.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw flies to Sudan on Monday and will encourage Khartoum to make use of the last few days before a U.N. envoy reports back to the Security Council.
Britain hopes its historic ties — which stretch back more than a century to when the region was a British protectorate — and its status as the world’s second-largest donor to Sudan will give it influence.
The United Nations has said in the last few days Khartoum appears to be taking its commitments seriously, but must do more on the ground. Sudan argues it does not have enough time.
The British official said London would support a bigger African Union force to protect observers monitoring a shaky ceasefire, but would have reservations about it taking on the extra responsibility of keeping the peace.
“We share doubts about the practicality and politics of extending the mandate of the force,” he said.
In the next few days, about 150 Nigerian troops are due to join 155 Rwandan soldiers in Darfur but critics say a force of this size is too small to be effective even its current limited role.
Nigeria has said it could deploy more than 1,000 additional troops to Sudan, possibly as part of a multinational protection force. But Khartoum says it reserves the right to reject the proposal.
Opponents of the idea say the African Union would take too long to muster the troops needed and that it is best to work with, not against, the Sudanese government.