Sudan

September 15, 2004 Off By leigh

I’ve held out commenting on the crisis in the Sudan to get some perspective , particularly watching the U.S government’s behaviour. Certainly the conflict is one which is not new, with one very sharp eyed journalist noting the involvement of China very early.

The following excerpts of a recent AP article note the magic word “oil”:

U.S. Softens Sanctions Threat Vs. Sudan

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer


I’ve held out commenting on the crisis in the Sudan to get some perspective , particularly watching the U.S government’s behaviour. Certainly the conflict is one which is not new, with one very sharp eyed journalist noting the involvement of China very early.

The following excerpts of a recent AP article note the magic word “oil”:

U.S. Softens Sanctions Threat Vs. Sudan

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS – The United States softened its threat of oil sanctions against Sudan on Tuesday to try to get Security Council approval for a resolution pressuring Khartoum to rein in Arab militias accused of attacking civilians in western Darfur.

The revised U.S. resolution, circulated to council members and obtained by The Associated Press, still raises the possibility of punitive diplomatic and economic measures against Sudan, particularly against its oil industry, if the government doesn’t act quickly against the militias, known as the Janjaweed.

The original U.S. resolution introduced last week — which China threatened to veto — declared that the Security Council “will take further actions” against the government if it doesn’t comply with U.N. resolutions. The revised text declares that the council “shall consider taking additional measures.”

The new draft still states that the Sudanese government could face penalties if it fails to fully implement a U.N. resolution demanding that it quickly stop attacks and start disarming nomadic Arab tribes accused of killing thousands in rampages on African farm villages.

It welcomes the African Union’s intention to beef up its monitoring force in Darfur and the Sudanese government’s Sept. 9 letter to the Security Council confirming Khartoum’s willingness to accept a larger force. The draft declares that the council will also consider punitive measures, including oil sanctions, if Khartoum fails “to cooperate fully with the expansion and extension of the African Union monitoring force in Darfur.”

U.S. Ambassador John Danforth told reporters the new text is “pretty close” to the original and the United States hopes for a vote by the end of the week.

“What we have to do on an accelerated basis is to maximize the African Union presence,” he said. “I’m for action now. Action is getting the AU in there and having sufficient funds for the relief of these desperate people — that’s action.”

China, Pakistan and Algeria objected to the original draft’s threat of sanctions and call for a U.N.-appointed panel to investigate whether genocide was being carried out against black Africans by Arab militias that Washington says are backed by Sudan’s government. That request remains in the new text, with slightly softer language.

China’s U.N. Ambassador, Wang Guangya, said he hadn’t seen the revised draft but he made clear that Beijing would have problems with any threat of sanctions or genocide investigation that would push aside Sudan’s sovereign government.

“I think that any use of the means of sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, is difficult for my government,” Wang said. “I don’t think that sanctions will be helpful under the present circumstances.”

The new draft adds language recognizing the Sudanese government’s efforts to ease the delivery of humanitarian aid and calls on all armed groups, including rebel forces, to stop all violence and cooperate with AU monitors.

The original resolution “demands” that the government cease all military flights over Darfur, as required in an April ceasefire resolution. The revised draft “calls on the government of Sudan” to cease military flights over Darfur.

The new draft calls on the government to end the climate of impunity in Darfur by identifying and bringing to justice all those responsible “including members of popular defense forces and Janjaweed militias … and insists that the government of Sudan take all appropriate steps to stop all violence and atrocities.”

(My emphasis).

Clearly there is a humanitarian disaster which could have been avoided long ago if any effort had been made by regional and richer nations. It certainly seems according to experienced observers (such as Human Rights Watch) that the Sudanese government is indeed responsible for the ethnic cleansing occurring in the Darfur region. Clearly international action is necessary.

However, southern Darfur is an oil region. This in the oilmen’s eyes places it into the role of a strategic asset that (paraphrasing Chomsky) needs to be controlled, even if the U.S. was to abandon fossil fuels entirely and move to renewable energy tomorrow. There is an undercurrent of opportunism in the U.S. administration’s actions on Sudan that ultimately seeks to stabilise the region sufficient for U.S. oil companies to obtain exploration concessions. That this may drive the U.S. to exert a humanitarian effort in the U.N is definitely welcome, but the displacement of a nationalised oil economy to one controlled and exploited by U.S. oil corporations may well bring as much death due to lost income (which could have been used for infrastructure development) as the number of lives saved by intervention at this late date.

While U.N action on Darfur is to be applauded, there is the ultimate question of why the U.S. should really be involved, certainly it has no regional claim nor major ethnic links to Sudan. While the U.S. has legitimate concern, it beggars belief that such actions come only from humanitarian concern.