Sudan Works Angles to Avoid U.N. Sanctions

Although every day of delay means more lives lost in Darfur, the Sudanese ambassador is doing his best here to buy more time to reverse what the U.N. officials call “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world” -- and what some term genocide.

Elfatih Mohammed Ahmed Erwa, a genial man swathed in white robes and turban, looms over a group of Islamic Conference representatives in daylong efforts to persuade them not to support sanctions on Sudan.

The government is acting as quickly as it can to disarm militias and improve access for aid workers, he says. Sanctions would destabilize the regime and anarchy would throw the country into even worse chaos -- if that can be imagined.

“Let’s not be hasty,” Erwa says. “Let’s give the Africans a chance to prove we can solve our own problems.”

In the bitter aftermath at the United Nations of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, many appear persuaded. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Group have agreed to formally request that the Security Council hold off on sanctions against Sudan. A few Security Council members -- Russia, Pakistan, Brazil, the Philippines and Algeria -- agree that the crisis must be addressed but are hesitant to punish Sudan’s government just yet. It is better to ensure Khartoum’s cooperation, they say, than to risk its alienation.

Many strands make up the internal conflict in Sudan that in a year and a half has claimed an estimated 30,000 lives and displaced more than 1 million people fleeing the murderous destruction of militias on horseback, known as the janjaweed.

One strand is ethnic: The largely Arab janjaweed are systematically destroying mostly black African villages, killing the men and raping the women, reportedly to make “more light babies.” Part of the conflict is driven by old tribal feuds over scarce water and land. And much of it is purely political: The government is using the militias and nomads to do the dirty work of putting down rebels challenging the regime.

Momentum to act reached a peak last month when U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan visited Khartoum to pressure the Sudanese government to stop the militias’ violence and to stop blocking aid groups from providing food and medicine to 2.2 million needy residents.

Khartoum agreed to a number of specific tasks, and a joint U.N.-Sudanese committee will assess its performance every 15 days. If there is not enough progress, according to a U.S.- authored draft resolution, the janjaweed will face sanctions immediately, the government perhaps later.

But Erwa is a master at tugging the different strands to make the tapestry of solidarity against Sudan unravel, observers say. An air force general and intelligence officer trained by the Americans “in the old, good days,” he says he has the experience to know the limits of international military intervention. An eight-year veteran at the U.N., he knows how to appeal to the interests of the different regional groups and how to add to a bureaucratic tangle.

He is jovial but dangerous because he is so persuasive, say those who sit across the negotiating table from him. To the Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, he says Washington is once again vilifying Muslims. To the African Group, which is helping monitor action and mediate peace talks between the government and rebels, he paints the Security Council sanctions as a way to undermine the African Union’s influence.

“This is a test case for the African Union. Their success in this case will bring them credibility and success in other issues,” he says. “But the U.S. is judging us before the ink is dry on our agreement. They are saying we aren’t making progress. They want sanctions as an end in itself, not as a means to improve things.”

To the Americans, he is doling out promises and carefully calibrated actions -- just enough to keep the sanctions sword from falling, but not enough to make the violence end.

Many engaged in Sudan have seen it happen before. Khartoum is trying to string out its commitment to end the attacks the same way it has drawn out the peace negotiations with the Darfur rebels, which have been “almost over” for months, said Minky Worden, a spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch.

“Khartoum has zero credibility left when they say, ‘Give us more time,’ ” Worden said. “They have played the international community for fools over and over, and have used every cease-fire and every diplomatic initiative to continue the killing.”

The U.S.-drafted resolution has yet to be introduced, even though human rights groups have been focusing attention on Sudan for months and the U.N. emergency coordinator recently referred to the situation as “ethnic cleansing.”

Annan, during his visit, acknowledged that the Security Council’s cards were limited.

“Tactically, I think it’s better not to rush into a resolution, but to hold it over their heads,” he has said.

The world is not prepared to send troops to intervene, Annan has said, and once the council has played the sanctions trump card, there is no leverage left.

Meanwhile, the Darfur rebels walked out of African Union- mediated peace efforts Saturday, saying they would return only when Sudan’s government meets six conditions, including disarmament of the janjaweed and the prosecution of those involved in genocide.

Washington remains determined to hold Khartoum’s feet to the fire. The issue has special resonance for the Bush administration: It is one that both the liberal left and the Christian right -- which has long focused on the enslavement of Christians in southern Sudan -- can agree on. U.S. officials say privately that if the Security Council is divided, they will circumvent it.

“We’re united in the understanding that this is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” a senior U.S. official said.

There is “no chance,” he said, that Sudan’s efforts will keep the resolution from being introduced soon -- perhaps this week.

But he noted that the U.S., the largest provider of aid to Sudan, is also working other channels: bilaterally, with the African Union, through the U.N. on peace talks, and with the aid community within Sudan.

“We are working with the Security Council because the secretary-general asked us to do so,” he said. “Not because we have to.”