Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I find myself again congratulating the member for Cook for his initiative in bringing this motion before the House, which I remember we discussed in February 2005—the same issue, regrettably. Six million African Muslims live in the Darfur region of Sudan. It is a scandal that the genocide persists there and continues to disgrace the international community for our inaction. Estimates of deaths in Darfur range from 200,000 to 400,000. More than two million people have had to flee their homes, with up to half a million now languishing in refugee camps in Chad. More personal reflection on the destruction of the entire lifestyle in Darfur was brilliantly portrayed by Eric Reeves in The New Republic of 5 May this year, when he wrote:

The attacks were comprehensive and revealed a rich understanding of what was most likely to destroy the future ability of African groups to live in Darfur. Irrigation systems were destroyed. Water wells were poisoned with human and animal corpses. Pottery vessels were broken to make carrying water impossible. Food stocks were annihilated. Cattle were killed or looted. Fruit trees were cut down or burned. Agricultural tools were smashed. Mosques or Korans desecrated. Buildings torched. Of course, the people were displaced, raped and killed.

Estimates of how many have died are between 200,000 and 400,000. One of the most deplorable aspects of the Darfur situation is the slow and inadequate response of the international community. The African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, the UN and NATO have all at times considered interventions but, for various reasons, all have failed to make any decisive impact on the situation.

Primary responsibility should rest with the African Union and the Arab League. At least the African Union deserves credit for taking the lead in efforts to restore security to Darfur, but it is poorly resourced and too deeply committed to other trouble spots to enable it to deploy a large enough force. Human Rights Watch has called on the African Union to increase its deployment from 1,500 troops to 12,000 troops. The Arab League has decided to support the Khartoum regime rather than to do anything to help the black Muslim people of Darfur. Human Rights Watch commented recently on the Arab League’s role:

The Arab League has condemned attacks on civilians, but it has remained silent about Sudan’s atrocities in Darfur. Khartoum has used its diplomatic skills to pressure the League into overlooking Sudan’s abuses in Darfur. In 2004, the League dispatched to Darfur its own Commission of Inquiry, which condemned violations of human rights by the militias. But following protests by Sudan, the League downplayed the commission’s findings.

The motion moved by the honourable member for Cook calls on the United Nations to do a variety of things, including deploying peacekeeping forces to Darfur. I wish I could share the honourable member’s optimism that the UN can or will respond in the way it should. It is a sad fact of international affairs today that the unholy alliance of China, Russia and France nearly always stands in the way of any effective action against regimes which grossly abuse human rights. Whether it is in Iran, Belarus, North Korea or Burma, it always seems to be one or all of the three above that help to prop up oppressive regimes and to prevent effective action against them.

In the case of UN Security Council inaction on Darfur, Amnesty International has reported that Russia, China and France are all heavy investors in developing the Sudanese oil industry and are selling arms to the Sudanese regime. The MiG fighter jets which were used to attack Darfur villages in 2003-04 were sold to Sudan by the Russians, who are also building an oil pipeline in Sudan. Amnesty also reports that the French have sold large quantities of military equipment to Sudan in recent years. The French corporation Total holds the rights to an oil concession in southern Sudan. Total is also heavily involved in Burma and has been frequently accused of propping up the Burmese regime for its own commercial interests. And what of China’s role in Darfur? I would like to quote a letter to the Washington Post from Roberta Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute:

China is Sudan’s largest trading partner and the main foreign investor in Sudan’s oil industry. China National Petroleum Corp. has a 40 percent share in the international consortium extracting oil in Sudan, and it is building refineries and pipelines, enabling Sudan to benefit from oil export revenue since 1999.

Although most Western oil companies have withdrawn from Sudan under pressure from human rights organizations, Chinese companies have turned a blind eye to the brutal way in which Sudan forced 200,000 to 300,000 of its citizens from oil-rich lands without compensation. Nor have these companies shown concern that Sudan uses oil revenue to purchase arms for its wars against its black African population.

The prospective Chinese veto at the Security Council is the key factor that has prevented the UN from declaring what is happening in Darfur to be genocide. This policy failure is a poor reflection on that important international organisation.

Like the member for Kooyong, I want to commend a number of international organisations for assisting the oppressed people of Darfur such as Medecins sans Frontieres, Human Rights Watch and others. These organisations have played an important role in preventing the genocide in Darfur. (Time expired)

See this speech in context