Dec 12, 2006 (WASHINGTON) — Tony Blair has backed imposing a no-fly zone over Sudan’s Darfur region while military planners in Washington are also developing plans for air strikes and a naval blockade to pressure Khartoum to stop the violence, the Financial Times reported.
The British prime minister declared his support for a no-fly zone for the first time during his visit last week to Washington, during which he told President George W. Bush that they had to deal with Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, in the next two to three months.
“If rapid progress is not made, we will need to consider alternative approaches, with international partners,” Blair warned on returning to London.
Military planning has moved ahead, one official said, adding: “The Americans mean business.”
Blair said he would seek United Nations backing for a no-fly zone which would be enforced by the US and UK.
Military action in another oil-rich Muslim country almost four years after the Iraq invasion would be risky. But some officials in Washington and London suggest it may be the only way to deal with the situation in the western Sudanese region, where between 100,000 and 400,000 people have died through famine and slaughter and 2.5m more have fled their homes since 2003.
A no-fly zone would be designed to prevent the Sudanese government from using its air force or helicopter gunships in attacks against villages in Darfur. Such attacks have been alleged by UN monitors and human rights organisations.
No decisions over possible military action over Darfur have been reached, and such a course would be considered only if Mr Bashir resists UN demands for the deployment of a “hybrid” force of UN and African Union peacekeepers.
Opposition from the US military is said to be strong. Analysts and diplomats are also sceptical the US and UK will conclude that military intervention against Khartoum’s wishes would rescue a complex situation.
China, which consumes almost two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports, is said to be concerned its image is being tarnished by its close association with Khartoum. But envoys doubt that Beijing would back any UN plan that might affect its oil purchases.
Blair spoke in Washington of his fears that the violence and “terrible suffering” in Darfur might destabilise the whole region and called for “tougher action”, but with UN approval.
Andrew Natsios, the US special envoy for Sudan, flew to Khartoum at the weekend to make another diplomatic push, though US officials doubted Mr Bashir would allow the deployment of peacekeepers.
“We are very concerned that [Mr Bashir] is buying more time to continue with military operations in Darfur. We need a different game plan,” one official told the FT, referring to what the US is calling “Plan B”, believed to be a package of sanctions and coercive action.
(FT)
It seems that whatever is being planned, it’s purpose is to put a stop to the violence. DUH! Okay so conduct a naval blockade, bomb the Janjaweed and bomb Sudanese military air craft. Cool, great, the attacks against innocent Darfurians will stop or will at least hopefully decrease. Lovely, it’s all good, nice (no sarcasm)… But THEN what?!! You see that’s the main point. Then What?? What happens after that? UN troops go in? Ya defintely, cause they’ll surely be welcomed with wide open arms. What happens if/after bombs are dropped? Will the root causes be addressed? Will the different rebel factions reconcile and come to an agreement? Will Omar al-Bashir suddenly hold free democratic elections? The root causes of this complex ugly conflict still aren’t paid attention to and I don’t think air strikes will do anything to halt violence in the long term run. Things might improve for a while, yes but that won’t last for long. Blogging to resume on Saturday night or Sunday. Busy with some stuff including podcast. Cya!
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
“Will the root causes be addressed?”
In a way.
Once the US have acted, the world will perceive America’s presence as the root cause.
So yes, the root causes will be addressed.
Two sad points…both AB and TS…
But if it is MY kids, sisters, parents getting raped, pillaged etc…I want some RIGHT NOW relief.
Do a little experiment guys…hold your head under water for as long as you can (I still surf and I get this involuntarily now and again). During the last 5 seconds or so, before you give up…all you care about is immediate relief…you don’t wax too philosophical or political.
Both your points are very true and stopping this will only be a bandaide. The area has enormous problems…like just about everywhere. OK…ready for the kicker?
Do we just let it go on then?
“But THEN what?!! You see that’s the main point. Then What?? What happens after that? UN troops go in?”
Here’s what:
Bashir, we have now shown you that we can bomb whatever we want. Do what will be required to stop us from bombing your palace/office.
Bashir can then go into hiding.
Then we’ll wait for the next strong man and tell him the same, until we find one who will do what is required.
What is required? I don’t care. THEY can come up with something, I am sure.
In the short run, this will help. The very very short run. I give it two weeks, tops, from the moment any American troops land in Sudan and the first massive suicide bombing. Credit will be taken by some local Jihadi organization and probably Al-Qaeda. And I give it a year, tops, before every Muslim part of Africa is in flames. Nobody will give USA the chance to address the actual causes - it’ll be deemed “imperialism”. Please see schools in Afghanistan for reference.
Seems to be like USA is trying to dig its own grave.
Oh, yeah… and I bet you that the flow of cash from China and Russia to Sudan will also increase. USA stuck in another war without the will to win it is very good for Chinese and Russian interests.
raccoon why can’t i post a reaction on your blog??
is everybody having a break or something?
Raccoon,
I give it two weeks, tops, from the moment any American troops land in Sudan and the first massive suicide bombing.
Massive suicide bombing of who? US troops? Dunno why you think that’s more likely in Sudan than in Iraq… do you mean suicide bombing of Sudanese civilians? Or UN relief workers? You may be right about that. Suicide bombings don’t seem to be that popular anymore, though… not in Israel or Iraq or anywhere else. I’d be disappointed if the US government let that threat determine their course of action. That would give terrorists a veto power on America, everywhere in the world.
All that said, I don”t think this is a very good idea. No-fly zones gave the Kurds a chance to build their own pseudo -State in Northern Iraq, but did nothing for the Shia in southern Iraq. 50/50 is not a good track record…though it’s not bad by today’s standards, I guess
Craig - against USA troops, aid workers, anyone supporting people trying to help Darfur, random civilians, whatever. There are constant suicide bombing attempts in Israel, and there are constant suicide bombings in Iraq. The sole reason there are many, many less succesful suicide bombings in Israel is the growing effectiveness of IDF security systems. Most suicide bombers are stopped before they can get to anyone (checkpoints, security fence, etc)… or are eliminated on their way.
When you deply with the sort of RoE that US troops have in Iraq, you can’t win. If not suicide bombings, then IEDs. If not IEDs, then RPGs. If not RPGs, it’s psychos with AK47s. If not that, it’s nice men on camelback cutting and polluting the water supply to a village and ambushing the aid workers when they come to fix it.
Terrorism works, man. It works really, really well - and indeed, terrorists are getting a veto power on America. Hell, they have veto power on Europe for quite a while now. With big thanks to the “liberal” media, academia and politicians.
I don’t agree with you, Raccoon. I was there for the world’s first and second suicide bombings (they were mere minutes apart) and Reagan CAVED. Ronald fucking Reagan gave the terrorists veto power over US policy. Things are much better, now. I don’t think the US is the least bit deterred by suicide bombers. That’s yesterday’s news, for America. The Europeans will catch up after they’ve appeased terrorism and had it just get worse as a result, enough times. That’s what woke America up. I suspect that’s what woke Israel up, too. Terrorists don’t get negotiated with. They get killed. Period.
To clarify, in case anyone is reading this, I don’t think suicide bombings (or IEDs) have anything to do with American unhappiness with the way things are going in Iraq. I think it’s the lack of progress in stabilizing the country, let alone rebuilding and getting a functional government going, that has made Americans want to get the hell out of there. I don’t think there’s anyone who is in touch with US public opinion who’d say otherwise.
This is truly a great blog! Keep on posting such interesting subjects! I already bookmarked your blog and I will recommend it to some of my friends. James Spade from http://HealthReviews.org
Leave a Comment