Darfur update: the one-two punch (has no wallop)

The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on four people: two from the government side and two from the rebels. The vote was 12-0 with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. Which produced this misleading Washington Post headline:

By Unanimous Vote, U.N. Hits 4 Sudanese With Sanctions Over Darfur

If China and Russia will not vote for this pin-prick (and "balanced") mini-measure I can hardly see them voting for--or even abstaining on--the authorization of a UN military force for Darfur.

Nicholas Kristof has some ideas about the types of military action that should be taken against Sudan. How does Kristof propose to get Russia and China to allow the UNSC to authorize a UN force? If a UN force is not authorized then the "international community" will not go along with Kristof's proposals--and the Bush administration will certainly not act unilaterally.

And Osama's jihadist threats will only weaken any appetite for a non-African force. I certainly cannot see Muslim countries taking part, pace Mr Kristof.

As this post demonstrates this story got serious coverage in the major US print media. As far as I can see our media almost completely ignored it. No wonder there is so little informed debate about foreign affairs in Canada.

Update: [NATO] Ministers will discuss Darfur amid US demands that the alliance should do more to stop ethnic conflict in the region. Scheffer [NATO Secretary General] said NATO governments are ready to extend a training programme for African Union peacekeepers in Darfur until September this year provided there was an AU greenlight.

Scheffer, however, ruled out any deployment of NATO forces in Darfur although he said advisors and communication, logistics and transport experts from the alliance could be deployed.

Not much there.

Upperdate: Detailed account of negotiations between Khartoum and Darfur rebels under African Union auspices. Good luck.

The warring parties from Sudan's Darfur region faced intense pressure on Wednesday to make new concessions after African Union (AU) mediators, hurrying to meet an April 30 deadline, proposed a draft peace agreement...

This time, if the parties reject the proposal, the AU would not simply carry on with the talks. Instead, the body's Peace and Security Council would have to decide on a new strategy for the Darfur peace process, Ibok [head of the AU mediation team] said.

The draft deal is the result of almost two years of arduous negotiations in the Nigerian capital Abuja, during which violence in Darfur has spiralled beyond the control of 7,000 AU peacekeepers who are supposed to monitor a 2004 cease-fire...

Uppestdate: Khartoum rejects any UN force. UN official says any UNSC-authorized intervention force would have to be non-UN--like NATO in Bosnia and that won't happen.

Sudan's president has rejected a U.N. appeal to allow its peacekeepers into the Darfur region to help stem a tide of violence that has left more than 100,000 dead and more than 2 million displaced over the past three years, a senior U.N. official told the Security Council on Wednesday.

The remarks represented a setback for a U.S.-backed proposal to send more than 15,000 U.N. and NATO peacekeepers to Darfur to replace an underequipped African Union force of more than 6,000 troops...

Annabi [United Nations' second-ranking peacekeeping official] warned that Sudan's opposition could doom U.N. peacekeeping plans. He suggested the council look outside the United Nations for troops if it decides to intervene in Darfur without an invitation from the government...

Meanwhile, a Toronto Star editorial April 27 (End Darfur carnage--what typically Canadian impractical moralizing) urges that
...
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should support this drive for stepped-up UN action...

and concludes:

The UN has threatened for a year to get tough. It is past time to act.

Truly the Star--and many Canadians--live in a fantasy world.

Mark C.

Posted by markc at April 26, 2006 10:34 AM