How should the United States and the international community respond to a brutal, despotic regime in an Arab country, one with clear ties to international terrorism? And what if this regime, located in one of the world’s most volatile regions, has honed its ruthlessly survivalist instincts for years, and in the process developed weapons of mass destruction? And what if the regime possesses great oil wealth, rendering its moral character invisible to those bent on further exploitation of promising oil reserves and the pursuit of petrodollars? And if this regime is also a threat to its neighbors, reneges on various internationally brokered commitments, and regularly attacks its own citizens in ways that violate the Geneva conventions, how should we respond?
These questions seem worth asking at the present moment since they have been answered in such starkly different fashion for Iraq and Sudan.
Seems the UN is about to upgrade the Khartoum regime from a “country with special problems” to a place which needs no UN special rapporteur for human rights. No more regular reports for the world press about the slave trade, the denial of humanitarian aid to those pesky 3 million folks inhabiting the oil-rich south of the country, or additions to the the 2 million dead over the last 20 years of civil war.
Certainly the US deserves some blame here. It seems to be pretty badly distracted with Iraq, and neglectful of past condemnations of Sudan.
But the oh-so-humanitarian EU is the active villain here, with France (and those lovable zanies at TotalFinaElf, who have major oil concessions lying fallow in the south) abetted by Libya (an ally of the Khartoum regime) currently chairing the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Sure the UNCHR did vote to cite Sudan for human rights violations — but left out any censure for the slave trade, or the attacks on religious freedoms — including forcible conversions of Christians to Islam and bombings of Christian religious sites. The US condemned the vote, but only to the extent of forcing a counted vote and then abstaining.
Indeed, through the oddities of the way politics work in the UN, the resolution passed with 28 in favor, zero against, 25 abstentions.
The ambassador of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, claimed that the move by the United States to call for a vote was “a clear politicization and misuse of the commission for obvious foreign policy purposes that have nothing to do with genuine human right concerns.”
Right. And if it were Christians bombing Moslems? I’ll betcha Pakistan would be outraged (and never note that the US got still got involved in such a situation, in Kosovo).
(via Ghost of a Flea, which has a number of other links on the Sudan)
Not only does Sudan bomb Christian religious sites but also Christian hospitals.
As for the US deserving part of the blame, maybe but the House passed the Sudanest Peace Act 359-8 October 7, 2002 and the Senate by unanimous consent did the same on October 9, 2002.
This act:
— Seeks to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan based on the Declaration of Principles of July 20, 1994 and the Machakos Protocol of July 2002.
— Commends the efforts of the President’s Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan, Senator Danforth, and his team.
— Calls for: multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; support for democratic development in areas of Sudan outside government control; continued support for people-to-people reconciliation in non-government-controlled areas; strengthening of humanitarian relief mechanisms; and multilateral cooperation toward these ends.
— Condemns violations of human rights on all sides of the conflict; the government’s human rights record; the slave trade; government use of militia and other forces to support slave raiding; and aerial bombardment of civilian targets.
The currrent Senate Majority Leader being a physician is particularly concerned with the Sudan donating his time in the Sudan during the July break in 2001. He was pushing for the above-mentioned act in 2000. Giving the glacial speed of Congress it took awhile to get it done. It seems from my quarters that the Iraqi situation may have focused people on countries such as Sudan rather than distracted. Time will tell.
My main confusion is why the US simply abstained from the vote, rather than voting against. The article is not clear on that point.
Even as old C-SPAN junkie I can barely explain Congress. The UN is just completely inscrutable. My best guess is the Pakistani Ambassador was right and we were trying to embarass some countries knowing that the UNCHR is a meaningless body.