AMONG THE UNSQUEAMISH:

Into Africa, now: It's no good saying nothing can be done in Darfur. A lot must be attempted, and soon (David Aaronovitch, August 1, 2004, The Observer)

Last Friday, with the eyes of the world's press turned to the warrior's apotheosis in Boston, a resolution was passed 200 miles away in New York. The UN security council, by 13 votes to none and two abstentions, voted to give the Sudanese government 30 days to disarm the militias that have been devastating the Western province of Darfur, killing up to 30,000 civilians and displacing hundreds of thousands more.

The resolution requires Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, to report back every month and threatens 'to consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article 41', if Sudan fails to respond. Article 41 of the UN charter does not relate to armed force, but could be used to impose economic restrictions or to sever diplomatic relations.

This resolution was only passed because an original and explicit mention of the imposition of sanctions was removed at the request of seven council members. Even so two countries, China and Pakistan, felt unable to support the weakened motion. China thought the measures were unnecessary because the Sudanese government was indeed co-operating, and both it and Pakistan felt that the Sudan was not being given enough time to sort things out.

The same resolution that Beijing thought too strong was condemned by aid agencies and human rights organisations as far too weak. One aid agency representative (speaking anonymously to protect its work in Darfur) slammed the Security Council. 'The only thing (it) has delivered is ... another 30 days in which civilians will continue to live in fear of being killed or raped. While diplomats sit in New York and procrastinate, the people of Darfur are dying. The government of Sudan will be celebrating yet another failure to call them to account.'

Not according to the sponsors of the resolution, including Britain, the US, France and Germany, who have argued that - properly understood - this is a testosterone-fuelled proposition, holding out the threat of dire consequences at the end of 30 days. Suggesting otherwise is merely a 'figleaf', said the UK ambassador to the UN, hiding the naked reality of future action from those countries too squeamish to contemplate it.

Whatever else people may think of them, few fault Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush for squeamishness.

MORE:
British soldiers "on standby" for Sudan (Reuters, 8/01/04)

British soldiers have been put on standby for a possible deployment to Sudan to help tackle what the U.N. has described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, the Independent on Sunday says.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence described the article as "just speculation", but she repeated comments made by the top military commander last week that the country could send troops to Sudan if they were requested.

She said no such request had been made.

The newspaper said soldiers of the 12th Mechanised Infantry Brigade were being briefed this weekend about a possible trip to Sudan.

General Mike Jackson, chief of staff, said last week a brigade could be put together "very quickly indeed".

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 1, 2004 10:30 AM