Mick Hartley

I’ve quoted Julie Flint often enough before on Darfur, but this really isn’t one of her best. Perhaps, writing in the Independent, she’s allowed herself to get carried away with some of that old crowd-pleasing anti-Bush rhetoric:

George Bush’s megaphone diplomacy has resulted in a complete breakdown of communication with Khartoum, the root of Darfur’s problem. The first thing the Prime Minister must do is establish a strong working relationship with Khartoum. He must make clear exactly what is demanded of it. Pressure will work only if there is clarity. This means not doing what Bush did: announce sanctions a day after Khartoum agreed to a “heavy support package” for UN troops.

Bush’s diplomacy, and a “complete breakdown of communication with Khartoum”, as the root of Darfur’s problem? Hmm. I’d have thought it had rather more to do with Khartoum’s strategy of punishing those backing the rebels by encouraging an Arab racism that’s effectively cleared Darfur, by the most brutal means, of its black African population. Whether that counts as genocide or not, it’s odd how many – after Bush described it as such – suddenly decided that the problem really wasn’t that bad – “Mortality levels among those reached by relief are marginally better than they were before the war and, remarkably, lower than they are in the suburbs of Khartoum” – and that all this talk of genocide was so much “moral posturing”.

But now, despite Julie Flint’s misgivings,

The emphasis on getting UN peacekeepers into Darfur has bedevilled western policy for the past two years, driven largely by an interventionist lobby whose backing in the US Congress has intimidated the State Department and hindered any rational approach to Sudan.

we do in fact have a UN Security Council vote to send in 26,000 troops:

The resolution was co-sponsored by the UK and France, among others, although its language was toned down after Sudan’s UN ambassador described an early draft as “ugly” and “awful”.

Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador to the UN, warned that the mere act of voting in favour of a peacekeeping force would not save lives in Darfur.

“But today’s action raises the prospect of a new start for Darfur,” he told the Security Council after the vote.

Despite the unanimous vote, major powers still wielded the threat of sanctions against Sudan if the situation in Darfur does not improve.

The Security Council backed the force in a unanimous vote after negotiations secured crucial Chinese support and eased the concerns of the Sudanese government.

It’d be interesting to know exactly how the Chinese were persuaded.