Joschka Fischer, over at The Guardian‘s blog, has written a good — if slightly dull — post calling for the EU to take more aggressive action against the Sudanese government.
…measures should target the Sudanese government where it hurts most: revenue and foreign investment inflows into Sudan’s petroleum sector, and supply of goods and services to that and associated sectors. The EU and its member states’ governments must enact legislation to ban companies based in their countries from direct involvement in Sudan’s petroleum sector and in industries related to it.Moreover, an investigation into the offshore accounts of Sudanese businesses affiliated with the National Congress Party, the ruling majority party in Khartoum, should be launched, paving the way for sanctions against the regime’s commercial entities, which form the main conduit for financing its Janjaweed proxies in Darfur.
Such targeted sanctions would affect the power and privileges of the key players in this crisis. By imposing them, Europe would finally take a real step towards stopping the killing in Darfur and extending meaningful help to its people.
Fischer’s right, of course. The fact that the EU hasn’t done much on the issue of Darfur is shameful. Unfortunately, the EU just can’t be relied on to stand up for human rights. The problem is due to the structure of the organization. Most foreign policy decisions in the EU are made by consensus. That means that if one of the twenty-seven member states disagrees with the views of the majority, they can veto the whole measure. This has resulted in the organization’s foreign policy being effectively led by its most reluctant member.
Take Russia. Despite attempts by the EU to act against Putin’s increasingly undemocratic policies, Germany has stepped in the way of such efforts. Concerned that the flow of oil from Russia might be cut off, Germany has repeatedly rejected measures to do anything about the issue.
The Darfur case is very similar. I’m not sure which one of the states is holding up action against Sudan, but at least one of the member states has surely stepped in to stop it. So, while I want to rely on the EU to push for human rights in countries like Sudan, I just don’t think we can. Until they reform their decision-making procedures, they will continue to be impotent on human rights issues.
No.
It’s beginning to look like it has to be grass roots action by the citizenry as the last best hope for the EU or anyone to make any headway re Darfur. Honestly, I don’t know how the members of governments can sleep at night with this horror going on year after year after year. And the effects are spreading in the region!
Bernard Levy, the French writer and philosopher has an idea about using the Olympic games to embarrass China on the subject. Levy is somewhat of a showman rather than a true intellectual, but I’ll take anyone at this point.
I remember tha movement to disinvest from companies doing business with South Africa. Are we so in thrall of market shares that this kind of tactic can no longer work?
> I remember tha
> movement to
>disinvest
Doesn’t work as well with Sudan, where there is much less development. Meanwhile, the PC college-campus-brownshirt anti-western Israel-haters have long pushed for an “Israeli divestiture” campaign, and Israel is obviously worse to many of them.
http://www.israel-divest.org/
China’s immense interest in hosting a successful Olympics makes its leaders susceptible to pressure from the global community, as domajot noted. As the Games approach, advocates for security in Darfur have an extraordinary opportunity to reach out to the Chinese government, in its role as host, to urge Beijing’s leaders to use their considerable influence with Sudan. Though a boycott is unrealistic and would likely be ineffective, global advocacy can work. Please visit http://www.dreamfordarfur.org to learn more about the Olympic Dream for Darfur campaign, and to find out how individuals can encourage China to pressure Sudan to accept a robust civilian protection force in Darfur.