Annan urges more action on Sudan

[Cannikin]

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on the international community to do more to avert a looming humanitarian tragedy in Sudan.

Annan told media Wednesday there was evidence of "gross and systematic abuse of rights" in the African nation, adding that the Sudanese government was not doing enough to redress the situation.

But the prospect of sanctions or military intervention in Sudan seems unlikely in the near term with the U.N. Security Council deadlocked over the issue.

Annan said it was a "judgment call" on when and what action the U.N. should take, but he warned the Sudanese government was running out of time to act.


continued:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/07/21/sudan.annan/index.html

[struggle4progress]

1. kic k

:kick:

[gottaB]

2. U.S. Congress Votes to Declare Genocide in Sudan

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5752016

I haven't seen a rollcall.

Bill summaries:

Genocide in Darfur,S. Con. Res. 124

Genocide in Darfur, House Con. Res. 467

[zmdem]

3. So should we invade ?

PM Blair hasn't ruled out the use of British military force.

[gottaB]

4. I know of no serious contemplation of "invasion"

According to the report obtained the Guardian (which Downing Street denied, while Blair has called such plans "premature"), the most invasive military action contemplated is:

British troops to protect refugee camps being harassed by marauding militias. This creation of safe zones would be the most risky of the options and would require the agreement of the Khartoum government, which would be reluctant to give it.

In response, Sudanese Foreign Minister, Mustafa Osman Ismail suggested that if Britain sent troops, the Sudanese would pull its army out of Darfur, leaving the British to cope with an occupation situation worse than Iraq (Blair: Nothing is Ruled Out in Sudan).

As I read it, Ismail's comments are meant to up the stakes as a signal to back off, and may be taken as a lack of agreement. Notably, Ismail does not state that the establishment of safe zones would be opposed militarily by the Sudanese government. So I would say that even though relations are tense and one sees intransigence on all sides, there is yet room for negotiations.

[gottaB]

5. "invasion" --to be clear

I would argue that John Bercow's use of the term in the article I cited is not consistent with the caveat that the use of the military to establish safe zones "would require the agreement of the Khartoum government." My understanding of the word "invasion," which I admit may be peculiar, does not encompass peacekeeping interventions that are negotiated with governing authorities.