Divesting from DarfurIII. Political pressure and diplomacy have been largely ineffective Critics might argue that political engagement and diplomacy are better means of influencing Sudan's behavior than divestment. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government has been largely impervious to political pressure without corresponding economic pressure. Recent examples of Khartoum's intransigent response to diplomacy can be found in section IX of this report. To complicate the problem of Sudan's unyielding response to international political pressure, several important players in the international community have stymied coherent action on the Darfur issue. Both Russia and China, who continue to sell arms to Sudan and have numerous commercial interests in the country, have afforded Sudan significant protection from their positions on the UN Security Council. Indian businesses (especially para-statal companies like Oil and Natural Gas Company of India and Bharat Heavy Electricals) have also developed extensive ties with Sudan. These Chinese and Indian business ties have allowed Sudan to obtain stipulation-free loans from both countries - loans that Sudan could never obtain from Western countries or from institutions concerned with the country's human rights record. There have been a series of recent articles on the influence of Russia, China, India, Malaysia, and others on Sudan and how these bilateral relationships are impeding international action against Khartoum. Perhaps no bilateral relationship has caused more misery for Darfur's citizens than the relationship between China and Sudan. In a commentary published in The Wall Street Journal on August, 10, 2006, the disastrous details of this bilateral relationship are laid bare:
Op-Ed: China's Crude Conscience Op-Ed: Push China, Save Darfur
Column: China and Darfur *All information provided by the Sudan Divestment Taskforce, www.sudandivestment.org |