Global Policy Forum

By Thalif Deen

A volatile mixture of oil and weapons is preventing the United Nations from taking punitive action against Sudan for continued atrocities in the province of Darfur, according to human rights activists and African experts. The 15-member U.N. Security Council has refused to intervene to end the genocide there, or even to authorise economic and military sanctions against the government in Khartoum, which has failed to rein in militias that have killed thousands and continue to reign with impunity despite months of international protest.

''On the U.N. Security Council, both Russia and China continue to oppose sanctions, for their own economic and political interests,'' says Ann-Louise Colgan, director for policy analysis and communications at Washington-based Africa Action, one of the oldest non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working on African affairs. ''China is the single largest investor in the oil industry in Sudan, and Russia also has interests in continuing to sell weapons and other military equipment to the Khartoum regime,'' she added. ''But neither China nor Russia wishes to antagonise the Government of Sudan, and neither one wishes to set a precedent for international intervention (or even punitive action) based on human rights concerns because of their own internal repression of ethnic communities,'' Colgan told IPS.

Both China and Russia -- along with the United States, Britain and France -- are veto wielding permanent members of the Security Council and have blocked efforts to punish Khartoum. Algeria and Pakistan, two non-permanent members of the council, also oppose sanctions, Colgan said, ''based on similar reservations, as well as out a sense of solidarity with the Islamist government in Khartoum.''

The atrocities in Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 black Africans have been killed and over 1.5 million displaced have been committed by marauding Arab militias called "janjaweed," who continue to also use rape as a weapon of war. The Sudanese government has not only been accused of creating the militias but also of turning a blind eye to their continued killings. ''If the international community had taken action sooner, the devastation in Darfur may have been avoided,'' said London-based Amnesty International (AI) in a recent statement issued at the United Nations.

But the Security Council, which is planning to meet in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi next week to highlight the crisis in Sudan, has failed to take any drastic action, including imposing sanctions. After a revision of a council resolution in July, U.S. Ambassador John Danforth told reporters: ''It turns out that the use of the word 'sanctions' is objectionable to certain members of the Security Council. They would rather use U.N.-speak for exactly the same thing."

U.N. Special Representative for Sudan Jan Pronk has a different take on sanctions. Addressing reporters Thursday, Pronk said they ''should be the last resort'' -- and only imposed after all diplomatic efforts had failed, because such a drastic measure would be an indication of failure. ''Serious language and withdrawal of funding would be more effective sticks,'' he said. ''Pressure works, but the right pressure points need to be found.'' Pronk did not elaborate on those "pressure points." But, he added, unless the parties to the crisis are held accountable and a sizeable peacekeeping force deployed soon, the situation in Darfur would devolve into ''anarchy.'' The African Union (AU), which has deployed a force in the region, needs about 4,000 troops, Pronk said, along with money and logistical support.

Donna Derr, associate director for international emergency response programmes at Church World Services, told IPS that despite Pronk's reservations, ''extreme sanctions may ultimately become necessary, but the reality of that is that implementing them would probably also impact the ability to provide humanitarian aid with ease.'' She said that although aid is usually exempted from sanctions, ''in Darfur, we're talking about a region that is already fraught with difficulties and insecurities in getting aid where it's needed.'' Derr also said that despite endless talk, the AU has to date only about 700 of the needed forces in Darfur. ''I would have to question whether everyone is on the same page regarding the urgency of getting the committed 3,000-plus force into the country.''

Despite strong language in two Security Council resolutions urging the Sudanese government to disarm the militias, the killings have continued. ''While the crisis in Darfur continues and the urgency of intervention to stop the violence is no less than it was several months ago, the media focus on Darfur has dwindled and the international community continues to drag its feet,'' Colgan said. ''More broadly,'' she noted, ''the Security Council is dragging its feet because no one is pushing for urgent action from within that body''.

''The mixture of oil and weapons is one of the crucial factors in the crisis in Sudan,'' says a senior U.N. official who has been tracking political developments in that country since the humanitarian catastrophe began in 2003. Since the discovery of oil in Sudan in 1999, the African nation has produced about 200,000 barrels per day. By 2005, production is expected to more than double, to over half a million barrels daily. The bulk of the oil production is now being handled by a consortium of Canadian, French, Sudanese, Qatari, Swedish, Malaysian and Chinese companies. Sudan is also building a 600 million dollar oil refinery with a capacity of 2.5 million tons. Khartoum's arms purchases -- mostly from China, Russia and former Soviet republics -- are being funded primarily with oil revenues. Although there are no official estimates, Sudan's total oil revenues are expected to skyrocket thanks to the high price of oil -- 50 dollars a barrel last week compared to about 25 dollars in 2003.

The U.N.'s latest annual arms register released in October states that Russia continues to supply military equipment to Sudan, the last shipment being three large-calibre artillery systems in 2003. The register also records the sale in 2003 of 48 Russian-made armoured personnel carriers and 32 Russian-made 122 mm self-propelled howitzers -- all of them channelled through Belarus. In June the U.S. State Department said it would view with ''grave concern'' the sale of 12 Russian MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter planes to Sudan, ''if reports of such sales were confirmed.'' ''The United States opposes all arms transfers to Sudan, which is a state sponsor of terrorism,'' State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters. Besides Russia, both China and Iran are key arms suppliers to Khartoum. The Iranians have financed over 300 million dollars in Sudanese arms purchases from China, including at least five F-6 fighter planes, as well as battle tanks and artillery.

Colgan said Washington, which had been asserting some leadership on Darfur -- declaring the crisis a ''genocide'' in September -- has been caught up with this week's election; but, more importantly, the U.S. administration feels it has done enough by providing aircraft to transport AU troops to Darfur, and is eager to push the responsibility for dealing with the crisis on to the African Union. While more AU troops have arrived on the ground in western Sudan, from Rwanda and Nigeria, they still number only a few hundred and are completely inadequate, as is their mandate, argued Colgan. ''The African Union lacks the capacity and the resources to handle this crisis alone, yet the international community is quite content to push this on to the AU's shoulders,'' she added.

In the interim, thousands more people are being killed and displaced, and there is no adequate plan or strong commitment from the international community to intervene and stop the genocide, according to Colgan. ''Of course, if this were happening in Europe, with white people, the response would be very different and very much more urgent."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.