Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. XLVII
No 32
The Political Scene (9 August 2004)
Sudan is under pressure from the international community following the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution threatening sanctions if Khartoum fails to take immediate and progressive steps towards ending the Darfur crisis. But whether consensus can be reached on what constitutes adequate compliance with the demands is less clear. Israel is defying international opinion and pressing ahead with an expansion scheme at one of the huge Jewish settlements near Jerusalem. The US says it is discussing the issue with the Sharon government.
Sudan Feels The Heat
These are difficult days for Sudan. International pressure to start taking action to defuse the Darfur crisis has crystallized in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1556, passed by 13-0 (with China and Pakistan abstaining) on 30 July. This calls on Sudan to lift all restrictions that might hinder the provision of humanitarian assistance, while endorsing the deployment of international monitors, and urging the parties to the N’Djamena ceasefire agreement of 8 April to conclude a political agreement without delay.
Then, crucially, the resolution “demands that the government of Sudan fulfill its commitments to disarm the Janjaweed militias and apprehend and bring to justice Janjaweed leaders and their associates who have incited and carried out human rights and international law violations and other atrocities, and further requests the secretary-general to report in 30 days, and monthly thereafter, to the Council on the progress or lack of progress thereof by the government of Sudan on this matter and expresses its intention to consider further actions… in the event of non-compliance.” The resolution also ordered an embargo on the provision of arms and military training to all groups in the Darfur region.
So the threat of sanctions – even though the word itself was dropped to satisfy China and certain other Security Council members – is there in black and white, and the onus now is on the Khartoum government. The official Sudanese reaction to the UN vote was mixed. “Sudan is not happy with the Security Council resolution, but we will comply with it to the best of our ability,” said the country’s UN Ambassador Osman al-Said on 31 July. On the following day, the Sudanese cabinet “condemned the time period and views it to be illogical and difficult to implement, especially since the agreement we reached with the United Nations gave a 90-day implementation period.” The tone of defiance increased on 2 August with armed forces spokesman Gen Muhammad Bashir Sulaiman telling the official al-Anbaa newspaper that “the Security Council resolution about the Darfur issue is a declaration of war on Sudan and its people. The door of jihad is still open and it has been closed in the south, it will be opened in Darfur.” He went on to describe the 30-day deadline as “a preparatory period for war against Sudan” which was being “targeted by foreign powers.” Then on 4 August, government ministers were among 100,000 people who took to the streets of Khartoum in protest against the UN resolution. Nevertheless, on 5 August Sudan’s Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail agreed with a UN envoy on steps to be taken – subject to cabinet approval – over the coming 30 days
How To Define Compliance?
Amid the fog of rhetoric and international media headlines, an assumption seems to have taken hold – not least in some quarters in Sudan itself – that the country faces sanctions if all the Security Council conditions are not met in the coming four weeks. This, of course, is not the case. But Khartoum does have to convince the world that it has made “sufficient progress” by the initial deadline in order for this to be extended on a monthly basis. In defining compliance, the Security Council may have trouble agreeing. The EU, for example, is already warning that the Sudanese authorities might need a considerable amount of time to disarm the militias and arrest their leaders. “No-one underestimates the difficulties of the Sudanese government’s tasks,” said the EU Ambassador to Sudan, Kent Degerfelt, on 3 August. “We are not asking the Sudanese government for the impossible, for it to settle all the problems in Darfur in 30 days. But we are asking to see progress on the ground, and for it to show its willingness to move in the right direction.”
But will “showing willingness” be enough to satisfy the US? The Bush administration is coming under pressure from Christian conservatives in the US to order military intervention – pressure that the president can ill afford to brush off in an election year. To placate those who say that the US has not done enough to end the suffering of the people of Darfur, President Bush will need to present convincing evidence that Khartoum is fully complying with the demands of the UN resolution when the first 30-day period is up. For example, a commitment made by the Sudanese government to greatly increase its military presence in Darfur does not look like being enough to satisfy Washington. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on 3 August that this was “only one of many steps they should be taking. The government certainly has within its power the ability to take action to stop these militias… It has a responsibility to act quickly… to turn off what they originally turned on.”
But even if the US judges that Sudan’s efforts have ultimately fallen short of what is required, Washington will still need to convince China – and other opponents of sanctions – that punitive measures should be taken. Aside from any other consideration, given the size of Chinese investments in Sudan’s burgeoning oil sector, Beijing will need a lot of convincing.
Egypt’s Cool Reaction
The Bush administration had hoped that Egypt would assist the US in turning up the heat on Sudan – the issue was raised during a visit to Cairo on 28 July by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu al-Gheit subsequently held talks with Sudanese leaders in Khartoum and made a brief visit to Darfur. But his performance must have disappointed Washington. While, he said, Egypt hoped that the Sudanese government would “deal positively” with the UN resolution, he added that Cairo had not been in favor of it. He also said the US and other Western powers should remain “objective” in the conflict. The foreign minister will not have won many friends in Washington either by his assessment of the plight of the Darfur people. During his brief visit to the region, he said he did not see evidence of the “gross violations of human rights” or “massacres” reported in the Western media, adding: “I don’t think it is like that.”
Whatever one’s views of Mr Gheit’s assessment, it seems clear that Egypt is less than enthusiastic about the degree of international pressure being applied to Sudan and is unlikely, therefore, to back sanctions. And without the full support of Sudan’s huge and influential northern neighbor, a sanctions regime would be meaningless.
US “Discusses” Israel Settlement Plan
A decision by the Israeli Ministry of Defense on 2 August to authorize the construction of 600 new housing units in Maale Adumim, the vast suburb east of Jerusalem that is misleadingly called a Jewish “settlement”, was criticized by the Europeans. The EU said on 3 August that the plan “runs counter to both the letter and spirit of the road map for peace that Israel has accepted.” British Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons said she was “very concerned” about the planned settlement expansion.
European displeasure with Israel’s policies in the Arab territories is routine – as is the habit of the Sharon government of ignoring it. Turning a blind eye to strong criticism from the US would be another matter. But even in the face of such a provocative move that will delay still more the day when serious peace talks might resume, Washington has continued to deal with its chief ally in the Middle East with kid gloves. “I think we’re having discussions with the Israelis and we’ll stay in close touch with them on their commitments to end settlements activity,” Mr Boucher said on 3 August. “They’re, I think, aware of our concerns and we continue to press them to live up to the statements of the roadmap.” If US pressure adds up to no more than statements like that, Mr Sharon will be happy to live with it.
Gerald Butt
(Charles Snow is on holiday)