Sudan escapes UN Security Council sanctions over Darfur

NAIROBI, Kenya, Nov 20, 2004 (PANA) — Detractors have criticised the United Nations Security Council for failing to impose sanctions against the war-ravaged Sudan for its inability to end hostilities in the troubled western region of Darfur as well as the country’s vast southern part.

Sudanese national policemen celebrate while leaving the Governor compound in Nyala, South Darfur. (AFP).

Although the council unanimously adopted a new resolution
compelling the Khartoum government and the main rebel Sudan
People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLA/M) to reach a final peace agreement and form a government of national unity, certain observers noted that the move had watered down previous threats to impose sanctions.

UN secretary-general Kofi Annan ruled out sanctions on the
Sudanese government, saying that Khartoum’s pledge to restore
peace after 21 years of bloody fighting was good enough. The
Security Council was likely to use force if the parties fail to deliver peace, he added.

“You need the carrot and the stick. I would not say one would not
use the stick at one time when it becomes necessary, both parties
are under obligation to honour their pledges,” Annan told
journalists in Nairobi Thursday.

“The Security Council came to deliver a message. The UN has made
it clear that they would want to conclude the peace negotiations
and the parties have promised to conclude the talks by December,
it is not very far,” Annan asserted.

The UN’s non-committal stance on the threats of political or
economical sanctions, seen as key to stamp its authority on
Khartoum to finalise the peace talks and reign on the Arab
militias accused of killing thousands of civilians in Darfur,
seemed to comply with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s stance
on the roadmap for peace in Africa.

“The magic formula when the internal parties involved in the
conflict fail to reach an agreement is to reach out to the
regional players. This package of players should find a solution
based four principles, negotiation, agreement and guarantee,”
Museveni had said earlier on.

“The internal parties will guarantee peace by stopping the
fighting, then we identify the source of the disease but we
cannot have the process of justice before peace as some of the
foreign diplomats want us to believe,” the former Ugandan
guerrilla leader told the Security Council.

Museveni who insisted that his assertions were based on his
experiences in tackling the war in Democratic Republic of Congo
and the neighbouring Burundi was in effect, dismissing calls by
several international rights groups that the perpetrators of war
must be punished before a peaceful solution to a conflict is
reached.

Security Council President John Danforth in his defence of the
middle ground taken by the Council said the objective of the
meeting in Nairobi was not to impose sanctions.

“This meting is not about the Security Council taking action, its
was the process of putting the Sudan peace process on the world
map and turning the international community’s attention to
Sudan,” Danforth told journalists in Nairobi Friday amid protests
by global rights groups criticising the failure to slap heavy
sanctions on Khartoum.

The Council passed its fourth resolution on Sudan, declaring its
will to deploy about 10,000 UN peacekeepers, mounts the process
of doing a needs assessment and evaluating the cost of
reconstructing the war-ravaged Southern Sudan and calling on the
World Bank to provide emergency funding.

But aid agencies, Sudanese rights groups and the New-York-based
Human Rights Watch (HRW) dismissed the resolution as weak and a
reward for the Sudan’s government’s massive human rights abuses
in Darfur.

“We fear that the government of Sudan will take this resolution
as a blank check to continue its persecution of the civilian
population in Darfur,” said Jamera Rone, HRW’s Senior Researcher
in Sudan, dealing with human rights violations.

“The new resolution omits language in the prior resolutions that
specifically threatened further measures, including the
possibility of sanctions, instead, it includes a much milder
warning to take appropriate action against any party for failing
to fulfil its commitments,” she added.

British charity, Oxfam, which is involved in the supply of relief
food in Darfur, slammed the Council for what it called a “trail
of resolutions on Darfur leading to nowhere.’

“We had hoped that the coming to Africa would have given the
Security Council a chance to turn a corner and deliver some
concrete actions for the people of Darfur,” said Caroline Nursey,
Oxfam’s Director of African Division.

Sudan rights organisations, which addressed the Security
Council’s sitting on Friday, urged it to ensure the protection of
people in the country through the deployment of peacekeepers and
the protection of the freedom of speech.

But even as the Sudanese foes pledged peace by signing a
memorandum of understanding promising to deliver peace by the end
of the year, deep rifts appeared to be simmering among the main
players, with the SPLM accusing the government of reneging on its
peace pledges.

SPLA/M leader John Garang accused the Khartoum government of
pursuing what he called “unattainable and inconsistent policies”
with regard to the implementation of the some of the six
protocols detailing security arrangements and the sharing of
wealth.

“We in the SPLM have no reason to cause delays, we state in
unequivocal terms that the peace process is technically finalised
and therefore there should be no stumbling blocks to closing the
deal,” Garang said.

“But there are two outstanding issues, cardinal being the funding
of the armed forces according to the Security Arrangements
Protocol. It was agreed the two armies-the Sudan Armed Forces
(SAF) and the SPLA– are to be considered as national armies,” he
explained.

“We agreed on the issue of funding and revenue sharing on a 50-50
basis but the other party’s position on this issue is both
untenable and inconsistent with the meaning and spirit of the
pact, it limits funding to SAF and completely ignores SPLA,”
Garang cried.

However, the UN Security President was optimistic that despite
the deepening rift over the issue of funding, the two sides would
reach a deal.

“We have a model for a state beyond any kind of a signed paper.
This is not going to be the end of the signing of a paper, its is
what is going to happen after that, the world is watching and the
SPLA/M and the government’s reaction is important,” Danforth
said.

Danforth, the Security Council President who is holding the
rotational presidency, said the world only had two options, to
paint Sudan as a pariah nation or take it by its hand and walk it
through its great problems.

Garang said the completion of the process would unlock Sudan’s
massive potential s for economic growth, saying the natural
wealth existing in the South has remained largely untapped.