Diplomatic negotiation re: Sudan at the UN Security Council: time windows are set by diplomats and not by the needs of people

This afternoon, diplomatic negotiation is intense in New York at the UN Security Council. US Ambassador John Danforth
is working toward a new resolution on Sudan.

Pressure is on for a resolution that will perhaps finally enable African Union troops in large numbers to enter Sudan, and limit air strikes and bombing raids in Darfur by the Sudanese government. Of course this is after months and months of delay at the UN and among world governments.

A public relations and diplomatic-process time window is in effect this weekend, because all side hope to have an agreement in advance of next Tuesday's opening of the UN General Assembly. The only way to achieve this is to have a successful resolution vote either today or tomorrow--Saturday. Expectations are the vote will come tomorrow.

It is a shame that events on the ground in Darfur don't set time windows, though this week developments in Sudan seem to have raised the concern of Secretary General Annan. Again, this seems very very late in the game.

A variety of reports out of Sudan indicate that violence continues to generate new "internally displaced persons" and refugees. For example, several thousand arrived recently in El Fasher, capital of the Sudanese state of North Darfur. A UN spokesperson said,

"They arrived about a week ago from villages south of El Fasher and we are trying to find out what happened," Abrahamson said. "It is estimated that nearly 1,000 households - roughly 5,000 people, have fled into the town."

This and other reports indicate that the Sudanese government is not disarming or reigning in its militia surrogates, but is continuing a scorched earth "counter-insurgency" campaign. Diplomats and nations who argued for trusting the Sudanese government to fix its own problem now look foolish or (in the case of China and Egypt) possibly complicit. My sense is that the discomfort of this perception will finally press the Chinese and other allies of Sudan to agree to force Sudan to accept African Union intervention.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan continues to lead at a turtle-like pace--appearing to respond forcefully to events, but doing so only with meetings and reports.

In New York, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced that he was sending the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and his Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Juan Méndez, to Darfur to recommend what could be done to protect civilians there from attacks by local militias.

[more]

One wonders why these experts were not sent to Sudan months ago.

One also wonders, by the way, what was the significance of Annan's statement earlier this week that the US invasion of Iraq was "illegal?" Was this in part intended to warn the US and the African Union not to get ahead of the UN on Sudan? How can Annan justify this, when the pace of his own organization is so slow, and its processes so clearly ineffective?

Oh, right, perhaps Annan's criteria for success is not how effectively the UN can respond on the ground, but how effectively it can maintain its primacy as an institution.

It so, this is a tragic inversion of priorities. The world needs effective international institutions, not just established ones.

Comments

[Wikus]

Jim,

I don't think it is helpful at all to criticize the GoS for not reining in the militia. How can they do this if they don't even have the rebels under control and, according to the only assessment I've ever read in this regard, are actually losing this war? If they were to turn against the Janajawid their position would be twice as weak.

If the international community gets involved at all, it must be to disarm both groups, taking into account their relative numbers. The approach should be piecemeal disarmament so that, if the rebel to militia ratio is, say, 2:1, for every militia disarmed and quarantined two rebels are disarmed and quarantined.

[gottaB]

I will defend Kofi Annan.

"Annan Urges Security Council to Act Quickly on Sudan":

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/africa/16CND-ANNAN.html

About the Charter. Annan's statement about the illegality of the Iraq war was elicited by a tenacious reporter. It has consistently been his view, although I gather he has avoided the word "illegal" in the past. I sincerely doubt that he meant to undercut the legitimacy or delay the implementation of an expanded AU intervention. On the contrary, Annan has recognized that the ongoing violations of humanitarian law in Sudan represent a serious challenge to the credibility of the United Nations, and in his millenium report he went as far as to claim that "the situation in Darfur strikes at the very heart of the ideals of Charter of the United Nations."

http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11850&Cr=millennium&Cr1=goals

Furthermore, Annan's recent call for urgent action acknowledges the signifance of the invocation of Article 8 of the Genocide Convention. Why weren't Arbour and Méndez sent sooner? Presumably because absent a resolution that demands an investigation of genocide, they could not be sent in over the government of Sudan's objections. Perhaps also because it is evident that the previous resolution did not have the desired effect of putting a stop to the depradations.

Obviously Annan is concerned with the institutional integrity and legitimacy of the UN. Annan's concern does not discount real human needs in Darfur, but rather aims to provide effective instruments for meeting those needs.