Will the world act now in Darfur?

In his article for the New York Post, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration, Peter Brookes argues that diplomacy has categorically failed to stop or even curtail the atrocities in Darfur and that only "highly credible threats" will check Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

Last week (Brookes writes), at the same time as the organisation he leads showed the Sudanese regime to be illegally transporting weapons into Darfur UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was attempting to stop the White House proposing sanctions against Sudan. Ban Ki-Moon argued that Khartoum's decision to allow 3,000 UN troops to augment the 7,000 African Union troops in Darfur meant diplomacy could continue. But since the Security Council passed its first resolution on Darfur in 2005 Bashir has repeatedly broken his promises to stop the humanitarian disaster happening in Darfur. Furthermore, given Bashir will not countenance non-African troops in Darfur, roughly 10,000 men will be attempting to stabalise an area the size of France.

Brookes argues that peace is even more elusive that in 2006 when only one of the three main rebel groupings signed up to a US backed peace plan. Now divisions amongst the rebels mean that any negotiations would have to deal with 15 rebel groups. No, Brookes argues, diplomacy has failed, and will fail. It is time for action.

• First, we must expect Khartoum to backslide on its promises. The UN must establish firm benchmarks and deadlines for: stopping the violence, disarming the Janjaweed and beginning peace negotiations.
• Second, back up those deadlines with punitive economic and financial sanctions and implement them if Sudan fails to meet the benchmarks. Even if the UN doesn't support sanctions Brookes argues that American and European Union countries, India and Japan could "curtail all financial and business dealings with, and investment in, Sudan. They could also freeze the assets of Sudanese officials responsible for the death and destruction in Darfur".
• Third, acknowledge that without international efforts to tighten it the current arms embargo is meaningless. The Pentagon should be looking now at how to establish an ideally NATO no-fly zone over Khartoum, something that would give "Khartoum heart palpitations".

Brookes argues that unless other nations join the US in increasing "arm-twisting" the slaughter in Darfur will get worse.  Another case for UK-US leadership?

Comments

[Kevin Sampson]

"Another case for UK-US leadership?"

Not just ‘no’, but HELL NO!

1 There is no way the African members of the UNSC would authorize such an undertaking, so any intervention on our part would be illegal, and we can’t have that.

2 Sudan has oil, therefore any action on the part of the US would be characterized as another war for oil.

3 There would be civilian casualties, with subsequent demands that those responsible be brought before the ICC and tried for war crimes.

4 If this was a joint US-UK operation, there might be instances of fratricide, with results like those now being played out in Britain.

And finally:

Been there, done that, (Somalia)

[JF]

Hopefully we will take action in this most clear-cut of scenarios. I have little hope that the EU will have the moral backbone to implement economic sanctions against the Sudan (proof: the EU's inaction against Iran in the British sailors/marines incident). If the US does act, we will inevitably be condemned again. I suspect we will have to sit this one out, as most of our "allies" have refused to help us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Time for Old Europe to step up.

It often seems that it must be written into the UN charter that Muslim countries are exempt from the human rights clauses. Sudan, Yemen, Iran, etc. seem able to get away with bloody murder (literally), but the West gets the majority of the criticism from the esteemed UN Human Rights Council (incidentally, also domincated by the OIC).

[Drew SW London]

There is nothing to be done here but to point a sad finger at Islamic regimes who don't buy the Western ticket on Human Rights.

The oil in Sudan is committed to China; there's no Western interest left to fight for. Beijing will simply not permit the UNSC to address this situation.

Pathetic Proconsular posturing from neo-cons won't save a single Darfuri, but could waste the last few drops of American credibility.

Just walk away.

[601]

War! War! War! It is the only way!

[Matt Davis]

As JF has rightly pointed out the UN, and particularly the UN Security Council is now firmly under the malign influence of the Islamic block. They of course would infinitely prefer yet another motion condemning those damn Jews to doing anything about genocide when that genocide is being committed by their ethnic Arab Muslim brothers largely upon Animist and Christian black Africans. If ever any greater proof were needed of the complete and utter uselessness and wildly pro Islamic bias of the UN then this is it.

[TomTom]

I urge the Russians and Chinese to get involved. Both countries have a history of deploying troops abroad - in Poland, Czechoslovakia - and in Vietnam and Korea and Tibet.

As Security Council Permanent Members in a multipolar world it is important for them to bring security to Sudan...sharing the burden of securing the world is an obligation on our Chinese and Russian global partners

[Teddy Bear]

Normally when you go into a BBC webpage on a particular topic you get related links also posted there.

The BBC claims the page with the most hits on their website is this one:
Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat

The story is pretty much as you can imagine from the headlines, but the sad fact is, there is no link to events going on in Darfur on the same page - WHY?

[JF]

Teddy Bear, how transparent are the BBC's finances?

[Teddy Bear]

To the best of my knowledge, the corporation's financial dealings are fairly transparent. If by the question you're seeking a motive for their bias there are a few to consider:
1. That certain powerful individuals within the corporation are receiving kickbacks buried in an offshore account.
2. That the overwhelming desire to be the most powerful media organisation in the world, and with Muslims running a large percentage of countries within, means they will appease them at all costs.

I think the latter is the main driving force. Their arrogance knows no bounds. Given the left wing tendencies of most of their staff anyway, even if most are not 'in on it', its not hard to keep the slant the way they do.