HRW urges UN to impose sanctions on Sudan's president�

Human Rights Watch wastes its breath calling for sanctions on top Sudanese officials. News reports tell us the US gets intelligence material from Sudan, China buys oil from Sudan, Russia sells MiGs to Sudan (none would approve sanctions) and that travel bans could be reciprocated, affecting international personnel visiting Sudan. So why call for sanctions? Are HRW just hot air or what, making a noise to self publcise and sound as though it is doing something?

I'd like to see them all pushing together to bolster the African Union Mission in Darfur. I wish everyone would simply pull together to fund and train the best available protection for all concerned in Darfur. Arguing for a UN force that might take a year to become a reality seems such a waste of time when millions of displaced people are sitting around waiting to go home.

Here's a thought: What if their "home" was on or near an unexplored oil area, will they still be able to return home?

Reuters report Aug 15, 2006 - excerpt:

"The Council should impose personal, targeted sanctions on top Sudanese officials responsible for preventing UN troops from being sent to Darfur," he said. A Human Rights Watch spokeswoman said this included al-Bashir.

The UN Security Council approved a resolution in 2005 calling for a freeze on assets overseas and a travel ban on individuals who defy peace efforts, violate rights or conduct military flights over Darfur.

But it has only been used once -- in April -- to impose sanctions a Sudanese air force commander, a pro-government militia leader and two rebel commanders.

A longer list of people have been recommended for UN sanctions by Britain and other nations, but other council members including the United States have opposed sanctions on other high-ranking Sudanese officials.