We have received thoughtful comments on our proposal to establish a nation-wide arms embargo on Sudan. Some have expressed the view that the US should do the opposite by pouring more arms into the region and into the hands of the rebels and/or launching military strikes directly against Bashir’s military including the imposition of a No-Fly Zone.

We respectfully disagree. Here’s why:

In 2005 the United Nations Security Council established an arms embargo on Darfur in response to the genocide being committed by the Sudanese government and janjaweed militias. Unfortunately that arms embargo had a loophole big enough to drive an M-1 tank through. To sell weapons to Bashir, all countries like China had to do was to get Bashir’s “word” that they would not be used in Darfur.  Guess where weapons ended up?

We think that an important step is to close this immense and ridiculous loophole and establish an arms embargo that covers the entire country.  Any nation that violates the embargo would be held accountable for breaking international law.

As I told the committee the law of unintended consequences is never stronger than with the use of military force. Our bottom line concern about a no-fly zone and pouring more weapons into Sudan is what it will likely mean for civilians.  Jehanne Henry, who testified at the hearing on behalf of Human Rights Watch, expressed strong concern about the impact this could have on the flow of vital emergency aid to desperate civilians.  Richard Downie at the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, providing weapons will likely “trigger an even more hostile response… the last thing Sudan needs is an arms race.”  It could also backfire, particularly if the US acts alone with Bashir rallying support for a nation under attack by a foreign military power.

There is little evidence that the region and the rebels are in desperate need of more weapons. The Sudan People’s Liberation Army-North (SPLA-N), which is currently fighting the Sudanese government in both Blue Nile and South Kordofan, never disarmed after the civil war between North and South Sudan and has taken over large amounts of weapons that belonged to the Sudanese Armed Forces after winning several victories in South Kordofan.

Of course getting an arms embargo through the Security Council is easier said than done as long as China has veto power. But while Chinese companies do profit from weapons sales to the Sudanese government, China now has to balance their support of Bashir’s regime with their desire to build good relations with South Sudan to protect oil investments. China does not like to be the lone opposition on the Security Council. If it is faced with acting alone, China will be less likely to exercise its veto. At the very least, such pressure will help the likelihood of other helpful measures such as UN sanctions, peacekeeping and humanitarian access.

An arms embargo is not the only action the United States can take. In my testimony I laid out three main recommendations:

First, the United States should expand sanctions on individuals responsible for atrocities throughout not only in Darfur but all of Sudan. Anyone who commits heinous crimes must be held accountable regardless of where in Sudan these atrocities take place.

Second, make saving lives in Sudan a high priority in our dealings with other nations – particularly those who can exert the most leverage on Bashir. We need increased and coordinated sanctions by the international community.

Finally, spend political capital to pass a United Nations Security Council resolution that:

• Expands individual sanctions for perpetrators;
• Expands the existing arms embargo on Darfur to incorporate all of Sudan;
• Expands the mandate of the International Criminal Court to cover the entire country; and
• Authorizes an international civilian protection force with the resources and mandate to accomplish its mission.

The best way for the United States to protect civilians in Sudan is to reverse its current course. We have identified what we consider vital steps that the US should take immediately. They do not involve adding more fuel to a raging fire that continues to claim the lives of innocent people.

The Security Council established an arms embargo that is too difficult to enforce because countries are allowed to send military hardware to Sudan, just as long as it isn’t used in Darfur. Well, how is Belarus – who has sold 15 Su-25 and Su-25UB fighter jets since 2008 to Sudan – supposed to ensure that the equipment it transfers does not end up in Darfur? Or rather, how is the UNSC supposed to determine whether or not Belarus knew that its military equipment was to be used in Darfur? As our friends at Human Rights First, who have done great work on this issue, wrote recently, “selling arms and ammunition to that government in Khartoum technically may not violate the embargo.” Of course, Julia Fromholz goes on to say that governments like China’s could be violating international law since it is so abundantly clear that the military material it continues to supply ends up in Darfur.

Next month, the United States presides over the Security Council. It can and should close the loophole in the sanctions and prohibit any arms sales to Sudan. If not going that far, it should prohibit countries and companies whose equipment or material has been found in Darfur from continuing to sell to Sudan. Won’t China oppose this? Maybe. But, while it objected to the most recent report from the sanctions committee, it didn’t block it. China has abstained on key votes in the past, including the vote that led to the International Criminal Court taking up the Sudan issue and indicting President Bashir. In all likelihood there will be a newly independent South Sudan soon. Flush with natural resources desired by the Chinese, Beijing has to be careful that its support for Khartoum, Juba’s longtime nemesis, does not jeopardize its commercial interests.

It’s good that Secretary Clinton acknowledges what we’ve known for years – the embargo is a joke. Next month she will have the opportunity to fix it.

With flights from Khartoum to Beijing running direct, illicit weapons trading finds easier route

China, an instrumental supporter of Omar al-Bashir and his murderous regime, proudly announced a new flight direct from Beijing to Khartoum earlier this week. The flight, provided by Hainan Airlines, China’s largest privately-owned air transport company, is launching its maiden direct flight between Beijing and the Sudanese capital next Tuesday. Interestingly, the Beijing-Khartoum flight is Hainan’s second to Africa – the first was a flight to Luanda, Angola…..another of the continent’s top oil-producing countries. These flights are clearly about business.

Additionally, the timing is interesting in terms of the priorities it reveals. Hainan only has one North American destination in service: Seattle. The Khartoum route service coincides with approval to begin a second North American route to Honolulu. That’s two American routes for one Sudanese route….Furthermore Hainan has only two current destinations in Western Europe: Brussels and Berlin, with a bid for Dusseldorf. It has five routes to Russia, no stranger to illicit arms deals with Sudan.

So what’s the big deal? Well, aviation links between China and Sudan deserve extra scrutiny. Why? Because first, the illegal deployment of aviation assets was a major factor in violation of the Sudan arms embargo as cited by the United Nations Panel of Experts report released last month. Further, private companies have been central to these violations, and many have been nonresponsive or uncooperative toward the panel’s inquiries. Finally, the vast majority of ammunition and weapons found in Darfur, POST-EMBARGO, were manufactured by Chinese companies in China. That means that military materiel was illegally transported from China to Sudan somehow.  The report calls for greater transparency and accountability in their movement, citing:

“The obvious lack of consistent and professional monitoring is exacerbated by the failure of the Government of Sudan to provide the Panel with data on air traffic movements and to ensure the Panel’s full and unfettered access to relevant airports and to the Sudanese civil aviation companies that are involved in delivering embargoed materiel.”

&

“Because many of the arms and ammunition documented in the Darfur region have been manufactured in China, the Panel has sought with particular interest the cooperation of the Government of China.”

Widely known and reported, China is and has remained a stalwart player throughout the crisis in Sudan. Whether curbing UN investigations or totally dismissing atrocities committed by the Bashir regime – China has been a leading voice in defending the Khartoum government and its destructive actions. But why shouldn’t they? After all, when has China been known to let human rights abuses get in the way of efficiency? Why have to deal with risking someone finding a cargo hold of weapons?

“Sudan and China have held old and renewed relations along the past fifty years,” recently said, Minister of International Cooperation of Sudan, Dr. Al-Tigani Saleh Fedail. “Sudan has the advantage of vast natural resources and China has the advantage of expertise and appropriate technology”

With allegations of an arms war beginning between the North and South, when will the first re-supply of weapons for the Janjaweed and other Sudanese “auxiliary” forces arrive, Dr. Al-Tigani? One cannot help but picture full barrels of oil being loaded up as crates of arms and ammo are unloaded and dispersed to these militias. But that’s ok, right, China…as long as you’re getting yours.

The state of the worlds peace is measured by a country to country basis and in various ways, including varying states of:

Social and Political Peace (i.e. degree of non-violent conflict, Militarization, Organized conflict, Number of displaced people, Number of external and internal conflicts, Respect for human rights, Social unrest (i.e. violent protest), Political instability, Number of deaths due to conflict, Potential for terrorist attacks.

The Global Peace Index (GPI) was started in 2007 by Clyde McConaghy and Steve Killelea. Each year since then they have gathered a panel of Peace and International Relations specialists together to study and speak about the state of the Global Peace Index (GPI) and what that means for the world. This year at the 2009 GPI the hot topic was the economy and how that has effected the state of the worlds peace. Below is the world chart for the 2009 GPI results:

There is also a detailed list of each countries rankings with a break down of how they achieved their standing here.

Something else that is very important when measuring peace is to examine each countries “drivers” of peace or important social and political matters that are being handled in a manner that keeps and sustains peace, these are:

1) Well functioning governments

2) Freedom of the press

3) Regional integration

4) Life expectancy

5) Participation in primary school

6) Women in parliament

Countries that have well sustained “drivers” have higher standing on the GPI scale.

The distinguished panel for the 2009 GPI made some very profound remarks about what needs to be done in terms of furthering a peaceful world such as, “All social issues can be solved with peaceful groundings, peace is quintessential to survival.”

Darfur, Sudan and the Global Peace Index

Sudan’s state of peace as measured by the GPI is at Very Low, reasons for this include their level of organized conflict, number of deaths and human rights violations. In order to become higher on the scale or to increase their standings of peace, Darfur as in all regions of the world that have conflict need to follow what the GPI scale describes as some of the best ways to keep and sustain peace which is having a strong economy, education and central government.

To learn more about the Global Peace Index visit their website.

Moreover, China’s logic for calling for the postponement is baffling.  Liu said that if an ICC indictment is issued “[Bashir] will become a kind of criminal suspect.”  Liu asked “how can the international community consider the criminal suspect as a credible partner…for the Darfur political process.”  The Chinese government is arguing that an indictment should not be handed down because the world will not be able to deal diplomatically with a criminal – in essence, Bashir should be let off the hook for his crimes because of his responsibility for those same crimes!

Fortunately, China does not seem willing to offer the necessary motion at the United Nations Security Council to suspend the Bashir investigation, so their opposition is thus far purely rhetorical.  That said, Liu’s statement provides an important insight into how China plans to deal with the Darfur issue in the coming year, and shows that they plan to continue their unvarnished support for the Bashir regime.

With a new year starting at the United Nations and with an incoming Obama administration which has voiced strong support for ending the genocide in Darfur, China’s hand may quickly be forced by potential U.S.-led efforts to expand the U.N. arms embargo and strengthen the sanctions regime against the Sudanese government.  Will China finally become a responsible stakeholder in the process to end the Darfur genocide in 2009 or will it continue to play an obstructionist role?  Time will tell, but early returns aren’t promising.

Despite a UN embargo on arms transfers into Darfur, several countries, including Russia and China, continue to funnel weapons to the Sudanese government by exploiting a loophole. The existing embargo allows weapons sales to the Government of Sudan provided they are not bound for Darfur — but the Sudanese government has publicly stated that it has every right to transfer military equipment wherever it wishes.

In an attempt to stop the transfers of Russian-made helicopters, Chinese fighter jets, and assorted small arms, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) have authored Senate Resolution 660, which calls for the U.S. to push the UN Security Council to expand the arms embargo to cover all of Sudan. The resolution also highlights Russian and Chinese arms shipments to Sudan and finds that any further shipments to the Government of Sudan, given its refusal to keep their arms out of Darfur, would be in violation of the arms embargo.

While it may seem unlikely that two permanent members of the Security Council would cut off lucrative arms sales they profit from, this resolution will build public pressure for expanding the arms embargo in Sudan. If you would like to help in this effort, please email or call your Senators and urge them to support S. Res. 660.

As millions of people around the world get ready to tune in and watch the Olympics in Beijing, they are probably unaware that their TVs likely share a common trait with the weapons used to kill up to 400,000 people in Darfur: they bear the stamp “Made in China.”

By some estimates, Sudan buys 90 percent of its small arms from China, as well as big ticket items such as A5 Fantan ground-attack fighter jets. Despite an existing UN Security Council arms embargo for Darfur, China and Sudan are working together to exploit a loophole to keep the arms flowing. Specifically, China argues that it sells weapons to the Sudanese regime in Khartoum, and that it cannot be held responsible if Sudan then sends those weapons on to Darfur in violation of the embargo. For its part, Sudan doesn’t much care if it violates yet another Security Council resolution, so long as it continues to receive the arms it needs to fuel its genocidal campaign in Darfur, as the BBC and others have recently documented. Despite this recent evidence, China has been unwilling to demand that the Sudanese government abide by the Security Council mandated arms embargo, and instead continues to turn a blind eye to these violations and cash Sudan’s checks.

Fifty-three of my colleagues and I recently sent President Bush a letter asking him to urge the Chinese to end their arms sales while he attends the Olympics in Beijing, and to seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution expanding the Darfur arms embargo to include all sales to the al-Bashir regime, thus closing the arms embargo loophole. China may well veto such a resolution, but their political and military support for the genocidal government of Sudan would be laid bare for the world to see.

China’s continued arms sales may, in fact, put them in violation of their international obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide. At a minimum, China’s weapons transfers to Sudan are helping to fuel the conflict. Given China’s continued intransigence and Sudan’s continued flagrant violations of Security Council resolutions, the only way to stop the flow of Chinese arms to Darfur is to impose an arms embargo which stretches past the borders of Darfur and bars all weapons sales to the murderous regime of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

What’s clear is that China, and other nations, must end their military relationship with a regime whose president was just accused by the chief prosecutor of the ICC of bearing criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes against his own people. No nation can provide such support to, an individual and regime behind the cruel acts committed against millions of Darfuris, and still claim to be a responsible member of the international community. Long after peace is achieved in Sudan, the long-suffering Sudanese civilians will remember which nations helped Sudan achieve peace and which prolonged its anguish. ”

Beijing’s theme for this year’s Games is “One World, One Dream.” According to the official website, this theme is meant to convey China’s commitment to “peaceful development, harmonious society and people’s happiness.”

We’ll state the obvious: China’s espousal of universal brotherhood flies in the face of its policies in Darfur. But China still has time to set things right. This is why advocates worldwide are urging China to take the following steps. First, immediately stop dealing small arms in Sudan. Providing these weapons only serves to arm many of the actors that are killing, raping, and maiming at will. Second, pressure Sudan to comply immediately with all existing UN Security Council resolutions, including the deployment of African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) forces to secure the region from the government-backed Janjaweed militia. Third, if Sudan does not change its behavior, China should refrain from vetoing UN sanctions against Sudan and its officials.