Skip to content or view screen version

Blair backs plan for no-fly zone over Darfur

Guy Dinmore | 14.12.2006 15:55 | Anti-militarism | World

"Military action in another oil-rich Muslim country almost four years
after the Iraq invasion would be risky. But some officials in
Washington and London suggest it might be the only way to deal with
the situation in the western Sudanese region."

Tony Blair has backed imposing a no-fly zone over Sudan's Darfur
region and military planners in Washington are also developing plans
for air strikes and a naval blockade to pressure Khartoum to stop the
violence in the region, the Financial Times has learned.

Mr Blair declared his support for a no-fly zone for the first time
during his visit last week to Washington, during which he told
President George W. Bush that they had to deal with Omar al-Bashir,
the Sudanese president, in the next two to three months.

"If rapid progress is not made, we will need to consider alternative
approaches, with international partners," Mr Blair warned on returning
to London.

Military planning has moved ahead, one official said, adding: "The
Americans mean business."

Mr Blair said he would seek United Nations backing for a no-fly zone
which would be enforced by the US and UK.

Military action in another oil-rich Muslim country almost four years
after the Iraq invasion would be risky. But some officials in
Washington and London suggest it might be the only way to deal with
the situation in the western Sudanese region, where between 100,000
and 400,000 people have died through famine and slaughter and 2.5m
more have fled their homes since 2003.

A no-fly zone would be designed to prevent the Sudanese government
from using its air force or helicopter gunships in attacks against
villages in Darfur. Such attacks have been alleged by UN monitors and
human rights organisations.

No decisions over possible military action over Darfur have been
reached, and such a course would be considered only if Mr Bashir
resists UN demands for the deployment of a "hybrid" force of UN and
African Union peacekeepers.

Opposition from the US military is said to be strong. Analysts and
diplomats are also sceptical the US and UK will conclude that military
intervention against Khartoum's wishes would rescue a complex
situation.

Military action would also risk destroying the separate North-South
agreement that endeddecades of civil war last year.

China, which consumes almost two-thirds of Sudan's oil exports, is
said to be concerned its image is being tarnished by its close
association with Khartoum. But envoys doubt that Beijing would back
any UN plan that might affect its oil purchases.

Mr Blair spoke in Washington of his fears that the violence and
"terrible suffering" in Darfur might destabilise the whole region and
called for "tougher action", but with UN approval.

Andrew Natsios, the US special envoy for Sudan, flew to Khartoum at
the weekend to make another diplomatic push, though US officials
doubted Mr Bashir would allow the deployment of peacekeepers.

"We are very concerned that [Mr Bashir] is buying more time to
continue with military operations in Darfur. We need a different game
plan," one official told the FT, referring to what the US is calling
"Plan B", believed to be a package of sanctions and coercive action.

The official confirmed that the US wanted to work with France in Chad,
where Paris already has about 1,200 troops to assist the government
against Sudanese-backed rebels. The Frenchair force is also defending
a similarly threatened regime next door in the Central African
Republic.

Guy Dinmore
- Homepage: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c5f9c7cc-8a4e-11db-ae27-0000779e2340.html

Comments

Display the following 3 comments

  1. Vote Boy — Blair Sucks
  2. Darfur you said? — Henk Ruyssenaars - 10 year Africa correspondent
  3. We shall bury you in the Hot sand of Sudan — Africa warrior