| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Horn |
| President Imposes New Sanctions on Sudan |
| 2007-05-30 |
| In announcing new U.S. sanctions on Sudan yesterday, President Bush made clear his frustration with the inability of his administration and the United Nations to halt the violence in Darfur, which he has described as ongoing "genocide." The administration's strong rhetoric and new plan to squeeze Sudan was greeted with immediate roadblocks yesterday. At the United Nations, China and Russia displayed little interest in joining the U.S. drive to isolate Khartoum economically and coerce its leaders into cooperating with international efforts to stop the violence in Darfur. On the other end of the spectrum, lawmakers and advocacy groups that have campaigned for tougher action on Darfur voiced disappointment with the president's plan as being too little, too late. They questioned whether the steps were tough enough to cause the Sudanese president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir, to abandon tactics that have delayed the arrival of thousands of additional U.N. peacekeeping troops. Yesterday's announcement represents the culmination of six months of deliberations within the administration about Darfur, where up to 450,000 people have been killed and about 2.5 million displaced as a result of a campaign of violence waged since 2003 by Arab militias with the backing of the Khartoum government. According to current and former administration officials, the situation has long been of special concern to Bush, who has been described by some as the "Sudan desk officer" for the White House and privately has expressed repeated frustration with the options presented to him. But Bush has been unable to broker an effective international effort to secure peace. He has been considering sanctions since last year but has repeatedly delayed implementation out of hope that diplomacy might encourage Bashir to facilitate the deployment of peacekeepers. Currently, an overwhelmed African Union force of about 7,000 soldiers is stationed in Darfur, but U.N. efforts to send a force triple the size have been stymied by Bashir, U.S. officials said. The plan announced yesterday is designed to ratchet up pressure on Bashir. The Treasury Department said that it will add 30 Sudanese-owned or -controlled companies to an existing list of 130 companies banned from any involvement with the U.S. financial system. The government also added three Sudanese individuals, two senior government officials and a rebel leader to the list of four people already subject to U.S. sanctions. Bush also said that the United States will seek a new U.N. Security Council resolution imposing strengthened international sanctions on Sudan and expanding an arms embargo. Diplomats say that they are also seeking a means to better enforce the prohibition on the government there conducting offensive military flights over Darfur. But the proposal leaves a major sticking point unresolved: whether a U.N. or an African Union general will exercise ultimate command over the peacekeepers. Many experts on Sudan voiced doubt that unilateral sanctions will affect Khartoum, especially its booming oil business, since the country has already been under onerous U.S. sanctions since 1997. "I don't think they will have any impact," said John Prendergast, an Africa expert at the International Crisis Group. But Treasury Department officials said that they have been working on ways to squeeze the oil industry, with 12 companies already on a sanctions list. "The object here is not to stop their oil exports but to impose a real price . . . to make them feel financially isolated," said Adam J. Szubin, director of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Meanwhile, the likelihood of multilateral sanctions seemed remote yesterday at the United Nations, where Secretary General Ban Ki Moon appealed for more time to persuade Sudan to make political progress. Ban is actively seeking Sudan's cooperation on several fronts, and he has been pressing Khartoum in recent days to sign off on a detailed a proposal for a joint United Nations-African Union "hybrid force" that would lead to the deployment of more than 15,000 additional peacekeepers in Darfur. Ban sent Bashir a private letter Friday setting out a series of four benchmarks that Sudan must meet to advance the peace process. It calls on Khartoum to accept the peacekeepers, disarm government-backed militia, guarantee safe passage to international aid works, observe an immediate cease-fire, ending all offensive military operations and aerial bombardment of rebel strongholds. Senior Russian and Chinese officials seized on Ban's bid for patience, warning that the imposition of sanctions at such a delicate moment could jeopardize Ban's efforts to bring an end to the bloodshed. A Chinese diplomat stationed at the United Nations, Li Junhua, said that Beijing does not believe sanctions will end the conflict in Sudan. "I won't say the action taken by the United States would help to convince our Sudanese colleagues to move forward," he said. The Bush administration believes that China may be more sensitive than it publicly acknowledges to the international and regional backlash on the Darfur violence. "The Chinese are attempting to expand their trade and their presence in Africa. This issue is infuriating the Africans, and I think the Chinese know that," the president's special envoy for Sudan, Andrew S. Natsios, told reporters at the State Department. "We have many indications that the Chinese position is evolving. They have been more helpful than may be apparent publicly." |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #8 LH, I do discount economic sanctions to a fair degree. If the country being sanctioned has something that other people want (e.g., oil), sanctions won't matter. We see that with Iran today, we saw that with Saddam, etc. My point (well, snark) was that the progressive Left has been calling for something to be done about Darfur. Their BDS, however, means that once George Bush starts to do something about Darfur, they'll oppose him. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-05-30 13:01 |
| #7 LH, I do discount economic sanctions to a fair degree. If the country being sanctioned has something that other people want (e.g., oil), sanctions won't matter. We see that with Iran today, we saw that with Saddam, etc. My point (well, snark) was that the progressive Left has been calling for something to be done about Darfur. Their BDS, however, means that once George Bush starts to do something about Darfur, they'll oppose him. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-05-30 12:59 |
| #6 steve, I thought you were one of the dudes who discounted the effects of econ sanctions? You've changed your mind? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-30 10:43 |
| #5 You mean with sanctions we can't expect another Manute Bol in the NBA next year? |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-05-30 08:18 |
| #4 Now that George Bush is for doing something about Darfur, the progressive Left will be against it. For the left the equation is simple: the life of a Palestinian, even if he is trying to blow a maternity is worth more than two hundred |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-05-30 07:07 |
| #3 Don't you mean "Regressive" Left? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-05-30 06:19 |
| #2 Now that George Bush is for doing something about Darfur, the progressive Left will be against it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-05-30 01:18 |
| #1 On the other end of the spectrum, lawmakers and advocacy groups that have campaigned for tougher action on Darfur voiced disappointment with the president's plan as being too little, too late. Cripes, can't these assholes at least give the man credit for trying to do the impossible. If he had done this 5 years ago, the outcome would have been the same (China and Russia putting the kibosh on it immediately). Of course, they would have said the same thing then too. So he should take them seriously? Any of us should? Uhm...no. |
| Posted by: Remoteman 2007-05-30 00:50 |