Global Reaction to New U.S. Sanctions Against Sudan
In case you hadn't heard by now, the U.S. imposed heavier sanctions against Sudan today.
The Treasury Department said it had blocked the assets of three Sudanese, 30 Sudanese government owned or controlled companies, and a company that violated the arms embargo in Darfur.
"These orders permit the imposition of economic sanctions on the Sudanese government for its continued support for international terrorism, ongoing efforts to destabilize neighboring governments, and human rights violations -- in particular with respect to the conflict in Darfur," the Treasury Department said.
At the United Nations we will work with the United Kingdom and other members of the Security Council on a Chapter 7 sanctions resolution to expand the embargo against the Government of Sudan and impose a binding ban on military flights over Darfur. We will also work to strengthen financial sanctions against Sudan. We will seek to widen the criteria for designation of individuals and entities for sanctions under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1591. We will continue our support for United Nations and African Union efforts to restart Darfur political negotiations while Secretary General Ban pursues engagement with Khartoum on the United Nations/African Union hybrid peacekeeping force. We strongly support Secretary General Ban's efforts and believe our action today will bolster them.
In Europe we ask that our friends impose financial sanctions that match our own, either through European Union mechanisms or bilaterally. The Bashir government must see that its actions will choke off international investments that are very important to Sudan. We do not believe that other governments will wish to associate themselves with the Sudanese as they persist in a policy of genocide and cynically obstruct international assistance. There is no good argument for giving the Sudanese more time. The Sudanese Government has shown what it does with more time. According to a United Nations report on May 3rd, for example, the Government of Sudan used Antonov bombers to attack the village of Al Hosh for four hours. This credible report and many others demonstrates that giving Khartoum more time is not the answer.
Bolded that one paragraph because it's dead-on. Best material I've seen out of Bush admin officials in awhile, that's for damn sure.
The Sudanese government is predictably pissed.
"We believe this decision is unfair and untimely," Sudan's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ali Sadiq, told The Associated Press.
His call found support in China, Khartoum's top diplomatic ally and a key business partner, which defended its investment in Sudan. Trade and investment are "helpful for the development of Sudan's economy and will fundamentally help Sudan to address the conflicts and wars in Sudan," China's envoy, Liu Guijin, told reporters in Beijing.
Yeah China, cause you really care sooooooooo much about those people.
But that’s not to say the sanctions will be helpful. The timing has been questioned by many, as it will undoubtedly influence the continuing negotiations between the UN and the Sudanese government over the placement of a large peacekeeping force in Darfur. The article continues.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said he needs more time to promote negotiations and persuade the Sudanese government to accept more peacekeepers.
Asked whether the U.S. sanctions would complicate his job of getting Sudan to agree to a larger U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force, Ban said: "We will have to see."
The U.N. agreed last week with the African Union on the final outline of the hybrid force that would more than triple the number of peacekeepers in Darfur with a mission of at least 23,000 soldiers and police. The peacekeepers would be allowed to launch pre-emptive attacks to stop violence.
South Africa's U.N. ambassador questioned the timing of the U.S. sanctions in the midst of those negotiations.
"It's not clear to us what are the sanctions supposed to achieve, what's really the aim?" said Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, whose country is a large contributor to the current 7,000-strong African Union force in Darfur.
Arab League chief Amr Moussa also criticized Bush's announcement, saying "this is not time for sanctions but time for intensifying efforts to reach understanding.
See the thing is, I agree with the second part of what he said. We need to “intensify efforts to reach understanding” and what the UN has done a really poor job of that.
Hell must be chilly today, because I agree with something White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said.
Question: What was the reason for the timing of the Darfur sanctions decision today? What had happened?
MR. SNOW: Nothing. The President, I thought, laid it out in his remarks. Ban Ki-Moon, upon taking over at the U.N., really wanted to try to work with President Bush here and get results in Darfur. And we continue to support any efforts to do that. But it also became clear that the Sudanese government was not changing its stripes, and therefore it was important to go ahead and follow through on what the President has been talking about for some time, which are significant and strong sanctions against the Sudanese government, and a rededication to trying to deal with the genocide occurring in Darfur.
That’s exactly right. I just hope it has the intended effect.
Yeah, I listened to NPR
Yeah, I listened to NPR today and was shocked as well... in a good way. It's sad that China doesn't agree with our policy though: they have the idea of not getting caught in other country's affairs, which is quite good in some cases (c'mon - look at us), but in this case, it doesn't seem right. I hope that sanctions actually do something in lieu of putting more strain and malice into the Sudanese government. The thing is though, that we buy a lot of stuff from China. By buying products made in China, and China supporting Sudan, then are we actually hypocrites? We are economically supporting the country that we don't want to help another country. Does that make sense?
Kalinka, kalinka, kalinka moya! V sadu yagoda malinka, malinka moya - Liz
yeah, it means our economy
yeah, it means our economy is fucked up and consumers are penalized for having morals. anyone who doesn't buy Chinese products is punished by having to pay more relative to everyone else. some people can absorb the costs. some people can't.
I wish we could just sever our ties with China, improve our own production capacity, fix our foreign policy and finally live up to American ideals.
maybe we can do it in time to prevent the next Darfur.
haha, just kidding. barely anyone is even paying attention, fewer people know jack shit about the economics we're tangled in, and even fewer people have any ideals.
^^^^^^^^^^
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
-Gloria Steinem
Post new comment