US faces opposition from at least five countries on Sudan

[cal04]

The United States faced opposition from China, Russia and other Security Council members to its latest draft resolution threatening oil sanctions against Sudan if the government doesn’t quickly rein in militias blamed for atrocities in western Darfur.
China’s U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya, who threatened to veto the original draft, told two reporters on Wednesday that the changes in the new draft “are more cosmetic ... there’s no change in the substance.”“Politically speaking, it is difficult for my government to approve this resolution,” he said. When asked if China would veto this draft as well, Wang said, “I don’t know. I need to ask for instructions from my government.”He said the resolution should take a “constructive” approach to find a solution to the crisis, not a “destructive” approach. It should call on the Sudanese government to cooperate with the United Nations and with the African Union, which plans to deploy a larger monitoring force to Darfur and urge countries to provide more humanitarian assistance.

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said Moscow hopes the current draft will be amended again to address the concerns of a number of council members.Asked whether the possibility of oil sanctions was acceptable, he said “we don’t like it ... those sanctions and specifically mentioning oil.” Denisov wouldn’t comment on a possible veto.Algeria’s U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali said his country does not believe “it is accurate and fair” to say that Sudan has not fulfilled its commitments, and therefore it doesn’t believe any consideration of sanctions is appropriate.

Algeria doesn’t support an international commission to investigate possible genocide “because the African Union had already, at its Addis Ababa summit in July, determined that there was no genocide and no ethnic cleansing,” he said. Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram said Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s report on Sudan’s compliance was mixed and the threat of sanctions is “premature at best.”“I think we have to give them a chance to implement - pressure certainly, but not extreme pressure,” he said.Akram warned that the threat of sanctions could provoke a decision by the Sudanese government not to cooperate with U.N. and African Union efforts to end the Darfur crisis.

“What will the international community do after that? Will it send in a force of 50,000 people? Is it capable of doing it? It’s not. So let’s not call out empty threats that could cause lots of people to die,” he said.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2004/September/theworld_September418.xml§ion=theworld

[teryang]

1. What is the oil sanction?

To take their oil? My personal belief is that this has been the real objective.

[geek tragedy]

2. China holds the biggest oil concessions in the Sudan.

Coincidence? Methinks no.

[teryang]

3. Bullseye

It's the old Arakis concession.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. link not quite working for me

but this seems to:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2004/September/theworld_September418.xml§ion=theworld

[reorg]

5. The Independent added:

>> (...)

Meanwhile, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), one of the rebel forces in Darfur, walked out of peace talks hosted by the African Union in Abuja, saying they were unable to reach an agreement with the Khartoum government over security issues. The talks had only just restarted after a three-week postponement, but are now likely to be delayed again for another four weeks.

The rebels are keen for the international community to intervene directly in Darfur, and believe that sanctions are more likely to be imposed if peace talks fail repeatedly. They have refused to disarm unless the Janjaweed are disarmed first. <<

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=562232