Here we go again. With how things are progressing, this latest development doesn’t surprise me.
There is a specific piece of info which I found pleasing. It’s the one in bold.
New U.S. sanctions against Sudan would extend those implemented in 1997 and be aimed mostly at companies owned or controlled by the Sudanese government. One other company is believed to be violating an arms embargo for Darfur and will also be banned from doing business in the United States or having access to its financial system.
The companies targeted will include firms in the oil and petroleum export-related businesses, all of which are crucial to Sudan’s economy. They are all expected to be named.
The four individuals to be affected include senior Sudanese government officials and rebel leaders.
The fact that rebel leaders are included indicates senior officials in the White House understand well that the rebels need to be pressured too, and not just the Sudanese government. I’ve mentioned repeatedly that pressuring both sides is the right approach.
As for the sanctions themselves, I really don’t know. I have mixed feelings and thoughts. The first sanctions imposed on Sudan since the Clinton era didn’t succeed in accomplishing anything much besides making life for the average Sudanese citizen harder and more difficult. Are these new sanctions going to be any different? Will they actually help accomplish peace in Darfur? I’m not sure. Only time will tell.
UPDATE: Some extra useful info:
Andrew S. Natsios, the special envoy for Sudan, acknowledged at a news conference yesterday that the new sanctions would have limited effects on the country’s oil production and exports.
“The purpose of these sanctions is not sanctions,” he said. “The purpose of these sanctions is to send a message to the Sudanese government to start behaving differently when they deal with their own people.”
…The administration also singled out two senior officials — Ahmad Haroun, state minister for humanitarian affairs, and Awad ibn Auf, the country’s director of military intelligence — and Khalil Ibrahim, leader of a rebel group called the Justice and Equality Movement.
And:
Past the current round of sanctions, the choices become more difficult. One option is to keep sanctions in place, reengage the government and the rebels in negotiations, and wait until the conditions for a genuine peace ripen. In this view, the cost of patience is relatively low — humanitarian conditions in the Darfur camps have actually improved recently by most measures. The cost of military confrontation could be high, if it causes the regime to expel the thousands of humanitarian aid workers who keep millions from starvation.
The problem with waiting for peace, as one administration official put it to me, is that “the regime only responds to pressure. It has no record of responding to positive moves.” So the other option is to set out on a ladder of escalation that will compel acceptance of the U.N. force and the disarmament of the militias. This approach would eventually involve the threat of force by a coalition of the willing — not invasion and occupation, but a no-fly zone and perhaps a blockade. It would also require a clear message to the regime that menacing the refugees would bring terrible consequences. The more credible this threat of force, the more likely that the regime complies without the use of force.
For more opinions and views you check a complete list of links here. Me loves Google!
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Tyrant of the Month
President Omar al-Bashir
http://www.crusade-media.com/leader.html
It doesn’t seem that we can go very long without imposing sanctions on one country or another. If the public had a say in these actions, they would not happen except for cases directly impacting national security. Why in the hell can’t we stop directly interfering in other countries business? We should not act like we are the moral spokesman or good shepherd for the entire world. It seems like we always take the action that the UN was designed to take…at our primary expense. The Europeans are glad for us to do these type of things, leaving them to look like the good guys and us the meddling trouble maker. If things go wrong, they all point the finger at us. How stupid can we get??? Why can’t we learn from past mistakes? Why can’t significant national foreign policy decisions be run by the American people via referendum before implimentation? The UN needs to act, not the USA!!! Two bit, busy body politicians that don’t know up from down are killing us…and more of these dummies stand in the wings of the Democratic and Republican parties waiting to be elected. We do not have people’s candidates any longer, but only PARTY candidates.
Thomas, the UN has systematically failed in being a constructive factor,with or without the US backing it. Isolationism is unrealistic as you’ll end up waking up one bright morning to someone ‘meddling’ in *your* country. Learn the lesson of WWII. If you run away from the international arena, it will to bite you in the ass. And quite frankly, I haven’t even gone into the responsibility the US holds as a country of its influence level.
As for the issue of whether or not the sanctions can be effective or not, it’s a difficult issue. If you keep them too focused on harming the country economically, the rulers will simply squeeze more out of the general populace to keep the military and police force well funded. If you focus on harming the rulers personally, they’ll grumble a bit and pay a lot more for their luxuries (squeezing the difference out of the general populace).
Sanctions have to be tailor-made to the political situation of the specific country they are directed against if they are meant to be of any use. If this can’t be done, then they’ll be little more than a pointless gesture that will do more harm than good.
I do not propose isolationism for the USA, only a policy of no unilateral interference in the affairs of other countries. If the USA would adapt such a policy, except in cases where there is a direct and imminent threat to national security, the world would be better off. As for the responsibilty of the US being a super power, I say that’s alot of BS created by non-Americans and delusionists who are too lazy and cheap to make the UN work like it should. In a nutshell, the USA SHOULD NOT be functioning like an independent United Nations. It’s not in the best interests of the American people.
I agree that these new sanctions are not going to have much affect on Bashir’s regime. Nonetheless, I’m all for turning up the heat on the Khartoum regime and their backers (and the rebels who are committing atrocities in Darfur as well). Now that naval flotilla sitting right off the coast of Iran on “maneouvers” and within easy strike range of The Horn and beyond is a whole ‘nother matter altogether… No Fly Zones coming soon, with or without the U.N.’s blessing?
The Chinese seem to be getting a little nervous these days with all of the U.S. Divestment activity beginning to take a bite out Beijing’s ass. U.S. Fidelity Investments are the latest to pull the plug on China’s Petro Dragon and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire-Hathaway stockholders can’t continue to hold on to China National Petroleum shares forever (albeit they voted down a China divestment resolution 56:1 last month). In the meantime I found this little article from Bloomberg to be rather humorous (Source: the Passion folks):
China’s April Oil Imports From Sudan Rise Sixfold
China’s oil imports from Sudan jumped more than sixfold in April, amid increased international pressure to cut economic support for the African nation, accused by the U.S. of supporting genocide.
China purchased 222,000 barrels a day of Sudanese oil last month, an increase of 539 percent from a year earlier, customs figures released in Beijing today [Friday] show. Sudan is China’s sixth-largest supplier of oil this year, [with] shipments rising more than fivefold to 25.8 million barrels.
China, Sudan’s biggest trading partner, is under heightened pressure to push the government in Khartoum to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force in the Darfur region. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi discussed Darfur in Washington yesterday [Thursday]. China National Petroleum Corp. is the largest foreign oil company active in Sudan.
“Although there’s opposition for political reasons, Chinese companies’ investment in Sudan will boost world energy supplies,” said Niu Liu, an economist with the State Information Center in Beijing. The increase in imports might come from China National’s increased production in Sudan, said Niu.
Could it be that China is expecting some unexpected trouble with the oil supply from Sudan, or is the Dragon simply ravished for Sudanese oil due to the Spring weather? Chinese Vice-Premiere Madam Wu was read the Riot Act on her latest visit to Washington, despite all the friendly relations photo ops, bowing, and cheesing for the press. Next headache for Beijing will be how to save The Genocide Games of 2008 before it’s too late and how to keep Big Al (Alan Greenspan) from pricking the “Bubble” before it bursts on its own accord. The regime in Khartoum, Sudan is fast becoming a major liability for Beijing’s Win-Win policy in Africa and elsewhere.
P.S. I know that it has been awhile since I left a comment here, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t been keeping an eye on you Drima. Impressive growth and respect in the blogosphere. Keep up the good work.
Thomas, your suggestion is based on the premise that there are enough countries in the UN with an interest in it working. This, I fear, is not actually the case.
So my argument is that the US should focus on reality as it is, rather than making a U-turn in policy that will not have any positive reprecussions whatsoever on the larger scale. As for the best interests of the American people, a world that is more or less stable is in the best interests of the American people, because chaos tends to spread. You don’t let crap today grow to where it will become a major headache tomorrow.
And finally… If you can stand by, watching, as hundreds of thousands of innocent people die, TODAY, while the UN bureacracy is busily not-functioning, TODAY, knowing all this time that you CAN change the situation, then I guess part of the American people are a bit too focused on their own personal interests.
I am not saying that the US should embark on “saving the world”, but helping out every now and then won’t hurt you as much as you apparently think.
By the way, Drima, thought the following link might interest you:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406043,00.html
Drima,
I too am relieved that for the first time the US has considered the rebels to be a part of the crisis in Darfur. Will the sanctions do anything for the situation, I highly doubt it. The government and the rebels won’t be hurt by these sanctions they will find other avenues to get money from, but the average Sudanese person is in for even more difficult years ahead of them. Quick question, where did the rebels get their money from? who is supporting them? and why? I think that the organizations, individuals, and or countries supporting the rebels should also get some of the heat that china is getting right now for supporting al Bashir’s government.
The cost of sanctions are too high whether measure financially or in lives. US presidential candidate Ron Paul is public questioning the effectiveness and long-term consequences.
Roman, I agree in the fact that the UN has proven itself to be ineffectual but to expect the US to help out “every now and then” implies American financial and militaristic obligations to countries other than their own and I simply don’t agree that persons who CAN give MUST. And who decides when the “every now and then” should be, what would be the criteria? Regardless of what the States does,they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
What needs to happen is the UN needs to be reformatted to have a far worse bite than its bark. Members of the UN MUST comply to the laws laid down in terms of human rights or else the leader of said country will be deposed. If they lack the means but ask for support, the UN should provide guidance and financial aid until the country is able to support itself.
Sanctions always filter down to punish the common man, woman, and child, and killing off innocents has never proven to be an effective way of redirecting a dictatorship.
TeacherLady, I do not say that you must help. I say that you should do what you feel you can. And diplomatic and economic pressure does not burden you that much. I am not suggesting military intervention here.
As for rebuilding the UN, by all means. How do we do that, though?
As for military intervention, it’s up to you guys to decide if it should be done. It’s your army, your people, and your risks.
Roman, we all go in there, kick everyone in the ass… Oh wait, sorry. You meant a REAL suggestion. As I am of no political importance, I don’t have any impact. It would have to come from within, and I’m sure they’re all far too comfortable in their positions of appeasement and political correctness to do anything about it.
Heh, and that’s just the Western members. Many others simply exploit the UN as a good way to distract the world of them.
I’m not American, but I get your drift.
My mistake for making an assumption on your nationality, TeacherLady.
to put my feet in the dishes : why this sudden interest in Darfur for Bush ? is it a response ? :
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5714
*shrug* I found the article to be heavily flavored by anti-US propaganda, Nomad. Note the reference to “genocide in Iraq”. I was also quite amused by the mention of the UN mission to Darfur, as the UN Human Rights Council has done its very best to skirt around Darfur when possible. Mostly due to its membership.
The ignorance of the author regarding the composition of the rebel groups in Darfur was also telling. The reference to Keith Harmon Snow is also… telling.
But then again, the entire article is just a rehash of the “the US wants to conquer all the oil!!!” hype. Bleh. I’d take most of what it contains as bullshit, and the facts it may references as twisted out of shape to suit the writer’s agenda.
Sorry, Nomad. I reckon the reason the US is interested in Darfur is because it was already keeping an eye on the place since the days our Friend Osama was based there, and because the shaky attention span of the US liberal public managed to focus on Darfur for the moment.
I knew this article was kind of on sided-view, and I was one who put the argument of Bin Laden being already there to mess up on SM’s blog ; but one can’t deny there is a big deal to be present there, at least to piss off China
*nod* I will concede on the pissing-off China part, absolutely. But the article is so fishy that I’d say the facts in it need verifying.
In any case, it is indeed the correct approach to see as many of the factors as possible. As long as we try to truly watch *all* of them.
That article may yet prove useful, *if* combined with several other articles that disagree with it, and with each other. Out of this sampling of data, after we do our best to cut out the noise, we will be able to gather truly relevant observations.
an EU army is going to be engaged in Darfour and Tchad
Hmm. Interesting. I did a Google translation, and if I read this correctly the NGO “Action against Hunger” objects to France’s plan to facilitate humane corridors, claiming that this attempt would only make matters a whole lot worse?
And there’s a more concrete plan to deploy a EU force in Chad. Very interesting. Time will tell how this will go, and I’m especially interested in this conference that’s going to be held on the matter.
yes, they fear that the humanist staff become a tarjet for the rebels
I am waiting for the conference too, ; I suppose the Chineses would like to improve their image before the olypic games
here a video taken in east Chad, how darfur refugiees can get good along with Chad population, but they are frome the same tribe.
evocated big problem there is the finding and sharing dry wood for cooking.
http://www.dailymotion.com/related/1722861/video/xn20k_arte-tchad-240805/1
yes, they fear that the humanist staff become a tarjet for the rebels
That may very well happen, but from what I know things aren’t exactly safe for aid workers today anyway… *shrug* It’s a matter of balancing the risks, I guess.
I suppose the Chineses would like to improve their image before the olypic games
I’m certain of it. With the amount of businesses and products now associated with China, they’ll be fools not to worry about their image. The Olympics are their big chance to either move forward or take a nosedive.
Leave a Comment