U.N. rewords Sudan resolution

UNITED NATIONS – The United States on Thursday dropped its insistence on explicitly threatening sanctions against Sudan if it didn’t stop atrocities in its Darfur region within 30 days, paving the way for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution today. Washington overcame opposition to its draft resolution by changing language that eight of the council’s 15 members found objectionable. The fourth revision of the resolution drops the term “sanctions,” although it maintains an implicit threat of diplomatic and economic penalties.

U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said he cared more about “starting the clock ticking” to spur Sudanese action in the western region, where 30,000 civilians have died, than about the language used to do so.

Danforth, a former special envoy to Sudan, said the council’s intention to impose sanctions was clear if the government did not live up to promises to disarm militias and protect citizens.

“The wording in the initial draft of the resolution included ‘sanctions.’ It turns out that the use of that word is objectionable to certain members,” he said. “They would rather use what I would call ‘U.N. speak’ for exactly the same thing.”

The draft resolution calls on Sudan to disarm largely Arab militias known as janjaweed, and it imposes an arms embargo to cut off the flow of weapons to militias and rebel groups in the region. It requires U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report every 30 days on progress and provides for “further actions” under Article 41 of the U.N. Charter – implying sanctions – if there is insufficient action.

The conflict, which began in mid-2003, pits the government and the janjaweed against two rebel groups. The rebels, who took up arms in a bid for a greater share of the country’s oil wealth, say the government in Khartoum is using the militias to drive black Africans from their land and turn it over to Arab tribes loyal to Khartoum.

The government says it is defending itself against the rebels and says it does not control the janjaweed, calling the attacks “tribal conflict.” But the United Nations, the United States and human-rights groups charge that Khartoum has fostered the janjaweed’s brutal and systematic campaign of the past 17 months – and demand that the government stop what the United Nations says is “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”

More than 1 million people have been displaced, and 2.2. million are in urgent need of aid, according to U.N. reports.

“No government can be responsible for or complicit in the explicit killing and brutalizing and raping of civilians,” Danforth said. “They created this monster; it’s their responsibility to control it.”

The Sudanese government signed a communique July 3 promising to halt the violence, disarm the militias and aid the secure return of people displaced from their homes. But nearly a month later, despite Sudan’s claims of improvements in policing and arrests, U.N. monitors and aid groups say the situation is worsening.

A report from African Union that cease-fire observers made public Wednesday said suspected militia elements chained villagers and burned them alive earlier this month in a town called Suleia.

Annan said Thursday that he was “gravely concerned” about reports of continuing intimidation, threats and attacks of displaced people in camps in Darfur, especially reports of rape.

Eight council members – Russia, China, Pakistan, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Brazil and the Philippines – had objected to various aspects of the resolution but especially spelling out the threat of sanctions.

“Explicitly brandishing sanctions gives the impression that the council is presuming that the government of Sudan is not going to comply, and that could be counterproductive,” Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali said. “We would rather show that we have faith that it will cooperate.”

The wording change appeared to satisfy all but Russia, China and Pakistan, but the three countries are not expected to oppose the resolution.