Not good enough
The UN Security Council passed a resolution on Darfur. Not good enough. As Alan points out:
Somehow it just doesn’t read as all that imminent. If the crude mortality rate in Darfur is 10 000 each day then 30 days is a long time to give the Sudanese government, especially when their complicity with the Janjaweed is now beyond doubt.
Update: John Quiggin is more upbeat, noting that the African Union is better on this issue than it has been on similar crimes against humanity in the past (though from what I’ve read it worked hard against the SC resolution), and that the US and Europe are working together.
It’s also worth noting that France has stationed troops on the Chadian border, and although they are there in a humanitarian capacity, they will be able to act quickly when (and sadly I mean when) Sudan fails to respond adequately.
Update: Sudan has rejected the Security Council’s resolution:
“Sudan expresses its deep sorrow that the issue of Darfur has quickly entered the Security Council and has been hijacked from its regional arena,” Information Minister El-Zahawi Ibrahim Malik said in a statement. “It pains Sudan to have to express its rejection of the Security Council resolution, which was a not correct one.”
That should be enough for the UN to declare that Sudan is in breach of the resolution. Unfortunately, it’s not. We’re going to have to sit around for thirty days while Khartoum sits on its hands.
In related news, Canada has offered to train police in Darfur. This would be welcome — the evidence suggests that the Sudanese regime is absorbing the janjaweed into the existing police force, so a new, local body will need to be established.
Australia’s Tim Costello visited Darfur, and is now leading World Vision’s Sudan appeal. Please donate generously, as the UN has estimated that there is only enough supplies for half of the current refugees.
It is disturbing to read that Sudan is turning its attention east, claiming that rebel groups in Darfur are connected to rebels near Eritrea. That might be true, but since it was a crackdown on the Darfur rebels that provided the pretext for the genocide, extending the policy to other regions is potentially disastrous.
Update: Apparently Sudan has backflipped and now accepts the resolution. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will make any real difference.
Bomb ‘em. Mother fuckers.
I suspect the Canadians are offering the police training in bad faith. The fact is that Talisman Energy, a Canadian company with oil concessions in Southern Sudan, has a stake in Khartoum. As do China, Britain (not an oil concession, but the foreign office has been pro-Khartoum since 56), and other Asian and European interests.
The only country with anything approaching a morality-based approach to Sudan at this stage is the United States. Canadian Talisman, for example, (according to Human Rights Watch) has allowed its facilities to be used by pro-Khartoum militia.
The other point worth making is that the social base of the Khartoum regime is limited to about 5% of the population - a political party that could never win an honest vote and requires military support. It shouldn’t be too hard to knock them over, but it will have to occur outside of the UN, and with a US security guarantee (I can’t see the SC playing ball).
That will be good for the following reasons:
the creation of a pro-Western (or at least pro-American) southern Sudanese state with
-substantial energy deposits
-control over the upper reaches of the Nile and by implication, Egypt (think about that for a while - one hydro-electrical project and the Egyptians will be wetting themselves)
-the best farmland in the area
Meaning that:
-Khartoum will go bankrupt and will be prevented from genocidal activities
-Egypt, Libya and co. will become irrelevant (with unintended implications for Israel - look, this is a coincidence alright?)
-the United States will be a step closer to defeating Beijing in the Great Game
The whole package snatched right out of the hands of China and delivered into the welcoming arms of the Christian Right and the Congressional Black Caucus!
Imperialists like myself nod with approval.
sudan disregards UN
could this be another shining example of the UN’s inability to accomplish anything concrete? i hope everyone will take the time to read this, it is a great representation of the world and its ability to blind itself because of…
Torre: I agree - should be fund to watch the USAF vapourise a pack of dirty, slave-driving, medieval goat rapists.
Steve: I agree - anything that’ll peeve the fascists in Beijing is a good thing.
Yay! We’re all in agreement.
90 days credit
The UN’s bluff has been called - and you can bet the farm that they’ll fold and complain that the deck’s stacked. The UN Security Council resolution (passed 13-0 with Pakistan and China abstaining - why?) has demanded the Sudan…
I would like to see a multinational force sent in to defend the African population, and to assist local resistance groups and democracy advocates topple the current government.
Of course, what happens next is a dicey proposition - but it would be an improvement on the state-sanctioned genocide going on now (and for some time).
Hello Robert, thanks for your message. Interesting comments from your readers here. Forgive me for this rushed comment. Things are changing quickly in Sudan and to save time, I have copied and pasted below a copy of a comment I’ve just left at John Rowbottom’s blog in Australia. Maybe I’ll do the same over at a couple of Candadian blogs. And hope anyone reading this - if they know a blogger in Canada, NZ and Oz could spread the word on asking people to show support to their political reps on sending troops to help the hundreds and thousands of Sudanese who are facing death. The death toll appears to be 80,000 according to a US official (UN is still saying 50,000 - but that’s in the past 18 months - the figure is 2m under the present regime.
Here’s hoping that you will get a chance to read the report I’ve pointed to and Australians will show support to their politicians - after Iraq the politicians need all the support they can get when it comes to decisions on sending troops without a UN resolution:
Thanks John. I’ve just this minute published three new posts - I’d appreciate you casting your eye over the important report I’ve pointed to - it will give you a good insight into what has been happening over the past 15 years and why another 30 - or 60 or 90 days won’t make a jot of difference. British troops are on standby at the moment. Tories are calling for them to be deployed within a matter of days. Khartoum has ordered its officials to stop helping with the aid operation and is saying it could send 12,000 of its police to Darfur “if necessary”. Khartoum incorporated Arab militias into its police force. It is like getting the foxes to guard the chickens.
My feelings are that troops will go in asap - the crucial aid operation has been ground to a halt - 70,000 are in isolated areas of Darfur and have received no aid yet. The air lift is the biggest (if not bigger) than the Berlin air drop during WWII - the French are helping - one report says the Australians are helping too. The key is the African Union (53 African nations) - they can get troops into Sudan without a UN resolution - mandate etc - and Sudan will accept African help. EU funds the AU and has a huge fund set aside to pay for African peacekeeping missions. An AU-led mission - EU funded - that has been organised by the EU and UN and AU (its taken weeks) will be landing in Sudan any day now. The mission consists of 270 armed troops from S Africa who are to be there with permission from Khartoum (it took days of arm twisting) to protect the 120 UN observers on the ground monitoring the May ceasefire agreement for South Sudan (a separate conflict - Darfur is a second conflict). The hope is that the AU will expand the numbers asap. Here’s hoping the British and others go in to provide back up to this mission - perhaps staying over the border in Chad or Libiya. I can’t believe I’ve just bashed this comment out. I need to rest. But its a critical time right now. It’d be great if Australians could signal their support to politicians on sending troops to Sudan.
FACT CHECK ALERT!
Having assailed Michael Moore for being slippery with the truth, I intend to hold myself to much higher standards than the Great Windbag does himself.
Canadian Talisman withdrew from Sudan last year, under a great storm of pressure from Human Rights organisations. The HRW report was dated to last year, so I don’t think they had the time to incorporate the change. However, I don’t think this will change Canada’s diplomatic stance by very much. Hell, the Brits got out 50 years ago and they are STILL shilling for Khartoum.
The United States is focussed on two countries at the moment: Iran and Sudan. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Both are Chinese (I won’t say “allies”) partners with substantial energy concessions/export contracts with Beijing. The subtext of all of this is the Great Game between the US and China. Given the state of Iran and Sudan, I’m praying the Yanks win.