There's no defense for the ugliness in Sudan and Zimbabwe. But US policy in connection with those two problematic nations is running into a buzzsaw. In both cases, the United States is acting clumsily, and it is facing stiff opposition from Russia, China, and many African nations.

Two obvious conclusions: the Bush Administration's muddled pursuit of democracy-by-force has made the entire world suspicious of America's motives in world crises, especially when they're tied to possible armed intervention. And confronting nations' real-world strategic interests, such as China's interest in Sudan, under the guise of humanitarian concerns won't fly, after Iraq.

First, there's the indictment today of Sudan's President Bashir by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Hague-based body that was rejected by the Bush Administration but is now embraced by Washington over Sudan. The indictment, not a surprise, was widely feared by world diplomats, who concluded that the consequences of indicting the Sudanese president were unpredictable and probably both dangerous and counterproductive.

It's the first indictment of a sitting head of state since the ICC was founded in 2002. But Bashir will resist the charges, and no one is going to charge into Sudan to arrest him. Meanwhile, UN diplomats and peacekeepers worry that Sudan will react forcefully, making the situation in Darfur in southwestern Sudan worse. The African Union issued a statement over the weekend warning against "the misuse of indictments against African leaders" -- perhaps thinking, too, of Zimbabwe. Both Russia and China (which has close economic ties to Sudan and its oil) were against the indictments, too.

Australia is already reconsidering its planned deployment of peacekeepers to Sudan, fearing greater violence. The Arab League is having an emergency meeting over the crisis.

Then, Zimbabwe. Over the weekend, Russia and China cast a double veto against proposed economic sanctions against Robert Mugabe's government. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilizad, the one-man wrecking ball and neocon strategist who represents the United States at the UN, blasted Russia for its veto. "The U-turn in the Russian position is particularly surprising and disturbing," said Zal-Khal. "They decided to make a point on this issue, to say nyet. Something happened in Moscow." Zal-Khal also accused South Africa's President Mbeki of trying to start fake negotiations to bring about a coalition government in Zimbabwe. Fake or not, the talks are stalemated, but continuing.

Russia has flatly denied making any "U-turn." And Russia's top diplomats are blistering Khalilzad. Not a good omen.

Comments (12)

1. So why are sanctions against Mugabe a bad idea, other than Russian & Chinese opposition?

   Posted by sloper at 07/14/2008 @ 11:57am

2. Many of the proposed sanctions, including shutting off outside electricity supplies and cutting cross-border trade with neighboring states, are likely to hurt the people of Zimbabwe, not its leaders. Plus, they risk more violence in Zimbabwe if they lead to civil war-like conditions.

   Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/14/2008 @ 12:15pm

3. But this is always the argument against sanctions -- that they hurt the civilian population much more than the intended targets in leadership. Those who oppose (d) sanctions against Iraq, South Africa, Cuba, etc. will always say that. Then which sanctions are worth doing and which are not. It seems to be that the question to ask is why are Russia/China opposing sanctions ? It's a given that Bush's foreign policy/diplomacy have been poor. But is it really the US's fault that Russia & China are against sactions. Zimbabawe is not an oil producer. Is there anything constructive that can be done in Zimbabwe. Does the US/EU not have any influence over South Africa to exert on Zimbabwe /

   Posted by chatters71 at 07/14/2008 @ 12:36pm

4. Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/14/2008 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Further, the only people who are benefiting from those things now are Mugabe's cronies. ZANU uses its control over aid to force support. Remove that and you won't be hurting anyone that Mugabe isn't hurting anyway, and you take away some of his ability to reward his allies. As opposed to civil war-like conditions--as opposed to what is going on now?

   Regarding the ICC indictment; progressives pushing for the ICC opposed the idea the US raised of requiring Security Council approval of prosecutions. You wanted an independent ICC, you have one. Not that anyone was sending peacekeepers in sufficient strength to Darfur anyway.

   Posted by brunowe at 07/14/2008 @ 1:24pm

5. Let them be the imperialists they so traditionally whined against!

   Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/14/2008 @ 2:44pm

   so,

   you admit.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2008 @ 3:35pm

6. An arms embargo might be of some help, but sanctions would only cause more problems for the general population. I am doubtful that there will be any overt military help from other countries. Militias have become popular as a local defense mechanism for minorities. Since fair elections are not possible, an armed revolution is the only option.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/14/2008 @ 3:59pm

7. What does the Zimbabwean opposition say about sanctions? I'm 99% certain that the African National Congress supported the sanctions campaign against aparteid South African, although I'm not sure if the Pan-African Congress did or not.

   I am generally opposed to sanctions unless a legitimate opposition group or coalition (legit, obviously, by my definition, so screw the counter-revolutionary Cubans in Miami) support them. In general, I would at least like to start from knowing what the activists from the country in question, exiled or not, want to do.

   Posted by cka2nd at 07/14/2008 @ 4:00pm

8. I said sanctions against Mugabe, not against Zimbabwe.

   Why would freezing the foreign assets, including all bank accounts, of Mugabe & all his conies be a bad idea?

   Moreover, Zimbabwe is already in a state of virtual civil war, as reported by everyone I know there.

   Posted by sloper at 07/14/2008 @ 4:21pm

9. Both of these crises speak to the incredible loss of American credibility and capability that Iraq has created. Without Iraq acting as a distraction of attention and resources, and the fear of repeating the botched regime-change experiment, international efforts to protect Darfurians and Zimbabweans from their murderous governments would have much greater chances of success. But there is still no excuse for doing nothing. Governments worldwide have been inexcusably timid in committing troops and resources to the UN/AU force in Darfur, instead clinging to the phony hope that Bashir could be persuaded to accept the deployment of a force that could actually carry out its task effectively. The Bush administration has been trying to keep on friendly enough terms with Khartoum to carry out intelligence sharing that is supposedly aiding the "war on terror" (even though bin Laden left Sudan more than a decade ago). No one was willing to consider putting sufficent pressure on China, via the Olympics, to stop its financing and equipping of genocidal forces and cooperate with the UN and AU efforts to protect civilians in Darfur. The genocide has continued because of world leaders' failure and cowardice; blaming the ICC for what might happen next is a C.Y.A. argument. China and Russia have been using their veto power to immunize themselves and their allies from any accountability for deadly atrocities and other human rights violations. Sanctions alone rarely succeed in toppling an outlaw regime, but they may reduce those regimes' ability to carry out their plots. Pressure has to be employed somehow. However insincere the U.S. government's respect for the UN and the ICC might be, however long a shadow the Iraq experience still casts, Americans cannot simply sit back and allow this global club of tyrants, led by China, to pick up where Bush left off in 2003 and tear the entire structure of international law and human rights down.

   Posted by scottbp at 07/14/2008 @ 10:26pm

10. Much of Africa is so poor that I wonder whether it wouldn't be a better idea to begin proposing the opposite of sanctions for countries whose leaders are doing the right thing, rather than harsher sanctions for countries whose leaders are doing the wrong thing. We need to learn to use more carrots and fewer sticks.

    "Happy2," if there's a country in the world that's ripe for sanctions, it's China, a country whose human-rights record used to be scrutinized by our Congress before we allowed trade deals. But suggest that we revoke China's most-favored-nation status, and you'd immediately hear who does the REAL whining - multinational corporations, led by that lapdog Yahoo, complaining that they need "stability," democracy and human rights be damned.

    I've already said what I think of sanctions in connection with the Olympics - it's what people propose who DON'T want to talk about broader-based, benchmark-connected economic sanctions that would be really meaningful and would really have an effect on what the Chinese government does.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/15/2008 @ 06:52am

11. talk of sanctions against china might provoke them to call the debt the hold.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 1:17pm

12. they hold.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 1:17pm