Hold the praise for Sudan

REVIEW & OUTLOOK, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Jan 11, 2005 — During the last 21 years, the Islamic regime in Khartoum has waged a murderous campaign against the mostly Christian and animist blacks in Sudan’s south, causing the death of 2 million people and turning 4 million into refugees. A delicate power-sharing agreement signed Sunday between the regime and southern rebel leader John Garang brought hopes of an end, finally, to at least this Sudanese conflict.

Attending the peace-signing ceremony in Nairobi, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to the biggest shortcoming of the deal: It doesn’t really end the killing in Sudan — at least not everywhere. “These new ‘partners for peace’ must work together immediately to end the violence and the atrocities that continue to occur in Darfur,” Mr. Powell said, referring to Sudan ‘s western region where the regime is fighting another war against its civilian population.

The suffering in Darfur has not eased since the U.N. called this conflict the “worst humanitarian crisis in the world” last year. Despite a cease-fire agreement in April, the past few months have seen a new surge in fighting, according to Human Rights Watch. “Continued attacks on civilians and aid workers have hampered relief operations,” the advocacy group says. Arab tribesmen, with the help and backing of the Islamic regime, are still pillaging, raping and killing black Muslims in that region. Already about 100,000 people are estimated to have died and almost 2 million are on the run.

Rather than serving “as an inspiration and model” for negotiating peace in Darfur, as Mr. Powell advocated, Sunday’s deal might actually have the opposite effect. Some observers fear it might be nothing but a diplomatic smokescreen, designed to confuse Sudan ‘s critics and to make it harder for the U.S. to call for tough U.N. action against the regime. “The government is signing partially to deflect pressure over Darfur,” John Prendergast, Africa specialist at the International Crisis Group, told us. The worry is that with their southern front pacified (at least for the moment), Khartoum could afford to throw extra forces into Darfur to finish their starvation campaign there. “Once it is done with Darfur, the regime might then turn around and finish off the South,” Mr. Prendergast said.

The only way to ensure that Khartoum implements the peace deal with the south and brings an end to the war in Darfur is to rack up the pressure on Sudan rather than to reward it for signing the agreement. Veto-carrying U.N. Security Council members such as France, Russia and China have in the past opposed sanctions against Khartoum, supposedly because it might threaten the peace talks with the south. But their important business interests in the country make their arguments against sanctions less than credible. China, Sudan ‘s largest oil investor, has in particular threatened to use its veto to protect the regime. This has prompted the U.S. to tone down its U.N. Security Council proposals, which then predictably turned into toothless resolutions.

In the past though, Sudan has shown itself responsive to pressure. The threat of a travel ban for regime officials, freezing of assets and an arms or outright economic embargo might get Sudan ‘s attention. Surely nothing less will. If China or any other country wants to veto a resolution designed to save the lives of Darfurian civilians, let them explain this to the world. But that won’t happen unless they are put to the test.