Sudan issues threat over intervention (21st century GENOCIDE)

[psychopomp]

Recap of some recent develpments: The US Senate and House of Representatives voted unanimously for resolutions urging US leaders and the international community to begin "calling the atrocities being committed in Darfur by their rightful name: genocide." US State department has called for sanctions.

Security council members Russia, Pakistan and China have opposed the threat of sanctions, saying the Sudanese government needs more time to act.

France and Arab nations want the African Union to handle the matter without UN intervention. UK offered up to 6,000 troops for deployment. Of the 350 million in UN aid to the Sudan, less than half has been ponied up my member countries with 70 percent coming from just four donors, the United States, the Netherlands, Britain and the European Commission

eTaiwanNews.com/Sudan issues threat over intervention

2004-07-29 / Associated Press

Egypt said yesterday it would try to prevent adoption of an American-drafted resolution threatening U.N. sanctions on Sudan, aiming to temper international pressure on its neighbor over bloodshed in its western provinces.

-snip

Aid groups, U.N. officials and Western governments say ethnic cleansing in Darfur - described by some as genocide - has killed 30,000 people, most of them black villagers, and threatens 2 million. Some Arabs, however, have rallied behind Sudan's Arab government or, fearful the United States is only trying to remake the region, say the West is mishandling the Darfur issue.

-snip

"Egypt believes that Sudan will be able to overcome this crisis by exerting more effort, and there will be contacts with the Sudanese government by Egypt in this regard in order to prevent the adoption of this resolution," Abdel Fattah said.

-snip
The Sudanese government warned Tuesday it would retaliate if foreign troops are dispatched to bring the situation in Darfur under control.

-more


< http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2004/07/29/1091066151.htm >

more news links on Sudan here:
http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&edition=us&q=cluster:www%2ecanada%2ecom%2fnews%2fworld%2fstory%2ehtml%3fid%3dcb4b2fbb%2d6c5c%2d44c5%2d81b6%2d0b9a13b1fad8

[psychopomp]

1. Strange to see the same nations lining up against

intervention in Sudan as did against invasion of Iraq last year. I was glad to see France, Russia and Egypt dissent last year but I cannot find any moral reason to oppose a UN-led effort to sanction Sudan in this case.

Today's lesson: international politics is not about morality.

[gottaB]

2. Similar fissures, not quite the same lineup

I think France and the US are roughly on the same page now--see stories linked here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x712340#713714

News items:

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/438997%3fformat=html

US issues 3rd UN Sudan draft resolution, presses for vote

Opposition on the Security Council had been coming from Pakistan, China, Russia, Algeria, Angola, the Philippines and Brazil. If Danforth wants a vote, I suspect there have been changes. Algeria may be hopeless, given the position of Egypt and the Arab League. Will Angola vote against the AU position? I wouldn't think so.

Germany, some in the government were talking about military intervention, but they have been mum lately. They had been leading this issue in the EU, urging sanctions, as had Sweden (Sweden contributes a civilian police officer to a UN team in Sudan)--their support is financial, diplomatic and, militarily, symbolic, but their position on humanitarian intervention is closer to the US position than to Russia's.

New Zealand, Nigeria and South Africa are considering contributing peacekeepers. South Africa in particular was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

Canada apparently does not want to be obliged to take action, though it provides some aid (Ottawa won't call Sudan crisis genocide).

The deal with China is oil and human rights. They may be persuaded to abstain in the Security Council, if they can be isolated. They object to the term "sanctions," but how strongly I don't know.

Russia just sold a bunch of MiGs to Khartoum--and, yes, it's been reported that MiGs as well as Antonov's have attacked villages in Darfur. I have no idea what it would take to get them to change their position or agree to refrain from vetoing any mandate for intervention. Perhaps some kind of concession in Iraq--not likely to come from Cheney/Bush*.

The Netherlands as head of the EU, has said sanctions may be appropriate (they had been more cautious). They have been generous with donations of humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and they have given logistical support to the AU (Dutch govt earmarks EUR100 Mln to rebuild Sudan's Darfur region, EU issues Sudan warning to end Darfur bloodshed). If Russia were to veto something like the current resolution proposed by the US, it seems like they would be distancing themselves from Europe.

Dutch support for military intervention is unclear. Like Canada (and the official US position), they won't describe it as "genocide."

In sum, more diplomacy will be needed before the UN will approve a mandate for military intervention. It's not impossible, but US influence and credibility has been substantially weakened by the Iraq debacle. The same is true of the UK.

The AU offers some hope for an internationally acceptable solution, but they are sorely lacking in resources, and significant political resistence might be encountered at some point, even though the most powerful members seem to be aligning in support of intervention. A "coalition of the willing" for Darfur could possibly include a full-fledged AU peacekeeping force, with troops from South Africa, Nigeria, Rwanda and perhaps others, with logistical and financial backing from Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, the US, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

That's my sense at the moment.

[psychopomp]

3. I am appalled by the lack of interest on DU

Where are all the "progressives" on this board? Where are the liberals?

It is very discouraging.

edit: look at this thread as a case in point-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x714613

Ben and Jerry are planning to get arrested at the Sudanese embassy and we get "their ice cream rocks!" and "why are they getting arrested, freedom of assembly is legal." Way to miss the point!

[Donkeyboy75]

4. Well, your post was about them protesting,

NOT about Sudan. That's why you got posts on the Ben and Jerry subject. Lighten up, and cut the condescending scolding. I'm sure many people read this, but what can you say?

I can wring my hands about it and tell you how horrible it is (which, it obviously is...worst genocide in many many years), but I have nothing else to offer the discussion.

[psychopomp]

5. Thank you for your post

Though I disagree with your first point...and I do not see any reason to "lighten up."

[Donkeyboy75]

6. Cool.

I was tired last night, and probably overreacted to your post, but I am kind of sensitive to people telling others what to get angry about.

This is one case where I have to give the * administration a modicum of credit. They are at least making the public a bit more aware of this situation. Your comment about international politics was dead on. Makes me sick.

[gottaB]

7. update: the US removed the word "sanctions"

a genuine failure