US Danforth lobbies UN to push Sudan to end genocide

By JON SAWYER, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26, 2004 (KRT) — The clearest window on the John Danforth style has been his approach to Sudan, the east African country accused of genocide for its brutal suppression of African tribes in the western region of Darfur.

As Bush’s special envoy, Danforth helped broker a cease-fire in the long-running civil war between the Arab and Muslim dominated government in Khartoum and rebels in the south, most of them Christians or animists. Now he’s trying to salvage the north-south peace process while at the same time pressing Khartoum to stop militia attacks on Darfur villages that have displaced some 1.3 million people. The latest World Health Organization estimates say the death rate in Darfur is now 10,000 per month.

In late July, Danforth pushed through a Security Council resolution threatening unspecified consequences if Sudan didn’t move to disarm the militias and to permit access to the region by humanitarian groups. The late-August deadline passed with what U.S. officials considered an inadequate Sudan response and Danforth has been pressing the council since for follow-up action – not least the possibility of sanctions on Sudan’s lucrative oil exports and the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate charges of genocide and to hold accountable those responsible.

China, with extensive oil interests in Sudan, threatened a veto. Pakistan and Algeria, two Muslim countries on the council, were also opposed. European governments pressed for compromise, contending that a resolution passed by a divided council would send mixed signals.

In the negotiations that followed, Danforth agreed to what he insisted were non-significant changes in language – “some little word-smithing,” he called it. He worked the relevant constituents, in particular successive breakfasts with ambassadors from Arab countries and from the Islamic conference. He sought the help of Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

But throughout he insisted that on the fundamentals – and end to the violence, and repercussions if not – the United States would not budge.

“There are times when the United States has to state its position,” he explained in an interview. “In the name of achieving a consensus position you can’t just have such a lowest common denominator that you end up saying nothing … I’m sure that we could get 15 votes or something that would be so soft that it would tend to say to the government of Sudan that whatever you’re doing is OK. We’re not going to do that.”