President Bush apparently bruised by jumping into the wrong war (in Iraq) without international sanction is now working through the UN and the African Union to put pressure on the Sudanese government to stop Arab militia violence and to provide access to international humanitarian assistance to reach the suffering humanity. US who was initially gunning for a tough resolution on Sudan in the UNSC has now settled for one with "cumbersome language by referring to provisions in the UN Charter on economic, communications or diplomatic sanctions". Though the UNSC resolution 1556 adopted late last month invoked Chapter VII of the UN Charter, reference to article 41 means that should measures have to be taken in case of failure of the Sudanese government sanctions would not involve the use of armed forces to give effect to the Council's decisions. The resolution sponsored by Euro-US combine uses tough language that should not be lost on the Sudanese government as emphasised to the Council by the US representative after the adoption of the resolution. The resolution, inter-alia, expressed full support to the African Unionled cease-fire commission and monitoring mission in Darfur.

US climb down is due to reported opposition from some members of the UNSC to the threat of sanctions proposed in the American draft. Few members who oppose stern actions against Sudan argue that the Sudanese government needed time to rein in Arab militia who are still, according to Kofi Anan, engaged in rape, killing and intimidation in Darfur. Meanwhile Arab League has urged the UNSC to avoid precipitate actions in Darfur crisis and expressed concern over possible foreign intervention. Colin Powell too has cautioned against "premature" military intervention in Darfur. African Summit in Addis Ababa of early July decided to send several hundred troops to the region. Though African contribution is seen as symbolic yet the decision to send troops and frank criticism of the Sudanese government are reflective of new era in African diplomacy by refusing to accept human rights abuses and bad governance in the continent. African desire to be rid of the euphemism of being the Dark Continent combining in the epithet elements of being impervious to forces of modernity, still steeped in tribalism, adorned with autocratic forms of government, indifferent to human rights violation, is understandable. Many African countries are not only now riding the fast track of economic development but are also shedding off the culture of "President-for Life".

African Union's proactive role in Darfur crisis is in line with the US-EU June declaration on Sudan that commends the African Union for assuming a leading role and supports the UN for addressing the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Darfur. The US-EU declaration calls on the Sudanese government to stop supporting the aggressive actions of the Arab militias and warns that those responsible for atrocities shall be held accountable.

The question that readily arises in the mind of many is about Western apathy towards the victims of southern Sudan compared to Western alacrity in facing other crises. After all the genocide in Darfur is the most vitriolic incarnation of the ethnic conflict that has been going on in Sudan for decades. One could judge Sudan as a failed state by the standard set by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (Failed and Failing States­6/9/02). According to Straw's measure (a) Sudan does not control its entire territory and guarantee security to its citizens, (b) Sudanese government does not maintain rule of law, promote human rights and provide effective governance, and (c) deliver public goods to its population. Albeit, Jack Straw suggests that developmental and diplomatic engagements be undertaken with failed and failing states to pull them out of the quagmire of failure. But since state failure is a degenerative process and reflective of the declining ability of a government like that of Sudan to carry on many and diverse responsibilities of managing a modern state in an increasingly complex environment and since due to such failure the state is unable to sustain itself as a responsible member of the international community; diplomatic and developmental engagements, however optimally desirable, may not necessarily be the only remedy. In that case, the world community, preferably through the UN route, may have to take recourse to humanitarian intervention that may be necessary in Darfur.

The interventionists may then either correct the aberrant situation which necessitated the intervention or go for regime change because a legitimate government should be representative of all people inhabiting a state. Should segment or segments of the population be left out on grounds of race, religion, culture, language or ethnicity and should such exclusion lead to discrimination and/or large-scale violation of human rights of the excluded then international acceptability of the government comes into question. It has been argued, as in the case of Iraq war, that coercive regime change violates the basic tenets of international law. Besides, armed interventions are constricted by the principles of necessity (thus invalidating the doctrine of preemption) and proportionality i.e. all out war to correct minor breach of conduct is not permissible. But when the Serbs under Milosevic embarked upon ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars NATO bombed Milosevic into submission and Serbia handed over Milosevic to the Hague Tribunal because the war ravaged country needed Western assistance for reconstruction and also for re-admittance of Serbia into the fold of the international community.

Miosavic argued, as did Saddam Hussein and their apologists, that armed intervention in both cases was contrary to the UN Charter, which guarantees security and territorial integrity of all member nations. Besides, military intervention also subverts sovereignty of a nation. Counter argument can be that intervention per se is not illegal as Chapter VII of the UN Charter empowers the world body to do so with the approval of the Security Council. As regards sovereignty it has been argued (by Paul Taylor of London School of Economics and Richard Haas, till recently a senior US State department official among many others) that after the end of the Cold War more governments were prepared to demand that those amongst them whose internal policy would not stand up to international scrutiny could retain their sovereignty under an international licence granted by the collectivity of states constituting the international community. Implicit in interventions in failed states like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, to name a few, was the precedence given to moral standard over privacy granted hitherto by commonly accepted legal framework.

The continuing transformation of the European Union is the most glaring example of change of the Westphalian concept of sovereignty. What is most interesting and paradoxical is that governments of former socialist states of Central and Eastern Europe have exchanged their newly acquired sovereignty so long trampled under Soviet domination by joining sovereignty-constraining European Union. The essential point made here is that humanitarian intervention in a case like Darfur is far more supportable than the Cold War period intrusions made by super powers in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Granada, Vietnam etc for protecting "strategic interests" of the US and then Soviet Union.

Intervention in Darfur can also be supported by "oppression theory". In arguing that oppression legitimises secession it has been said that at certain point the severity of a state's treatment of its minority becomes a matter of international concern which may demand guarantees of minority rights, regional autonomy, economic independence or even the right to secessionist self-determination. This expansive "oppression theory" was used to justify the creation of Bangladesh. Though Bengali determination to be free of Pakistanis aided by Indian humanitarian intervention helped create physical entity of Bangladesh, it has been said that oppression by the Pakistani occupation troops rather than Bengalis constituting linguistically, ethnically, and culturally a distinct group helped in getting international recognition for Bangladesh as an independent state. Helsinki Declaration, for example, grants "peoples" a right of self-determination and not to national minorities so that the right of self-determination cannot be used to bring about dissolution of federated states comprising of peoples of different nationalities or minorities.

Critics of Iraq invasion would not have been so up in arms if the Anglo-US messianic zeal could have been circumscribed and made to follow the UN route by giving Hans Blix's people more time to go into Iraq's then suspected WMD programme. Had Bush-Blair impatience been reined in then Jacques Chirac would not have threatened to use French veto in the UNSC. The point being made here is that ultimately the US following not a policy of unilateralism but multi-lateralism would have to bell the cat in Darfur taking both the consent and the cooperation of the UN and the African Union. All, however, does not accept this view. For example, Christopher Preble (of CATO Institute) disagrees. He feels a regional solution should not include American troops because US already has enough on its plate and there is no credible evidence that Darfur hosts a significant al-Qaida presence directly threatening US security. Besides,Preble argues that European and African forces having historically played leading roles in operations in Africa (EU in Congo in 2003, Nigeria in Sierra Leone in 1998 and France in the Ivory Coast in 2002) are better suited than the Americans to play effective role in Darfur.

Be it as it may the developing world should not quietly countenance the arrogant view expressed by some that democracy is a parochial custom used by the English-speaking world for the conduct of its public affairs that may or may not be suitable for others. Sudan being a Muslim and an Arab country both the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have major stake to prove to an increasingly disbelieving world that the Muslims have unflinching commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the universal values of civilised society.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.