Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)

This timely debate comes in a week when the Sudanese President, Umar Hassan al-Bashir, rejected a proposal for the United Nations to assume joint command over a peacekeeping force in Darfur and said that he would only accept UN assistance to African Union troops. He addressed a press conference yesterday, according to Bloomberg, which was televised throughout eight cities in Sudan and surrounding countries, to the effect that he was rejecting the hybrid force. He was quoted as saying there was no question of accepting the hybrid force because it was being rejected. He said, "Our troops in Darfur should be part of the African Union and under the command of the African Union".

If those reports coming from the coalition from Darfur are correct, it is a serious rebuff to the United Nations. It is a timely debate, coming at a time when it seems there has been a rejection of the hybrid force. President al-Bashir has laid down conditions that any peacekeeping force should be part of the African Union and under command of the African Union only. This is a serious rebuff to the United Nations which has proposed, in conjunction with the African Union, the creation of a hybrid force of about 20,000 soldiers and police that would operate under joint African Union-UN leadership.

In addition, the Sudanese President has described the Darfur crisis as a media creation and declared that only 9,000 people have died in the violence. In fact, this figure is 1,000 less than he quoted at a 25 September press conference. The United Nations has estimated that as many as 200,000 people have died in Darfur since the war erupted in February 2003, and that the region is the scene of the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said on 16 November that Sudan's Government had agreed in principle to allow the United Nations to provide $21 million in aid, advisers, equipment and logistics to help strengthen the 7,000-person African Union peacekeeping force.

However, President al-Bashir has claimed that there is an international attempt to recolonise Sudan, and part of this attempt is the campaign to publish false information about genocide and mass rapes in Darfur. The Sudanese President has also denied that his Government is rearming pro-Government militia in Darfur, describing them as bandits that his police force was pursuing. We all know that this posturing from the Sudanese Government is unacceptable and is seriously undermining peace efforts in Darfur.

We must support the African Union's Peace and Security Council's efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the human rights crisis in Darfur. We must be alarmed at the situation there, and also in eastern Chad, given the recent increase in hostilities. The volatility on the Sudan-Chad border and the escalation of militia attacks on civilians in both countries as well as the increasing security risk to humanitarian aid workers in the region are unacceptable. I want to pay tribute to the brave talented people who operate under appalling conditions in that area.

Despite all diplomatic efforts, the situation is clearly deteriorating. Therefore, renewed and stronger action is urgently needed to protect civilians and end human rights abuses. Given the recent proposal of a hybrid UN-African Union force for Darfur which was agreed in Addis Ababa on 16 November, the subsequent rejection of that proposal by the President of Sudan is most disappointing for those seeking peace. This is based on reports from Bloomberg released last night. Whether our lines are crossed I do not know. I am just going on those press releases from last night and I hope they are wrong.

We must condemn unreservedly the Sudanese Government's indiscriminate attacks on civilians and other war crimes, but we must push for a strengthened international protection force that has the requisite mandate and capacity to provide effective protection to civilians. We must again call on both the Sudanese and Chadian Governments to accept such international deployment immediately.

Since February 2003, at least 200,000 Darfurians have died as a result of the armed conflict. The Government's counter insurgency operations have been characterised by war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Some 4 million people, more than half of Darfur's population, are now dependent on some form of international food relief. Widespread killings, rapes and attacks by Sudanese Government forces and militia have forced 2 million people into camps. Even these camps are not safe and the killings and rapes continue unabated.

Unfortunately, civilian access to humanitarian assistance is at its lowest point since 2003-04. With 13 aid workers killed in Darfur since May of this year and much of the region too dangerous for overland travel due to continued attacks on staff and convoys, humanitarian agencies are unable to reach hundreds of thousands of people in need across Darfur. It is an understatement to say that the current situation in Darfur requires urgent action. In the first week of November alone, it has been documented that the Sudanese Government has indiscriminately bombarded from the air civilians in Sudanese and Chadian villages on both sides of the border. Water points in Darfur — essential for the survival of displaced civilians and their livestock — have also been attacked. There is photographic evidence available of these incidents as well as countless eye witness accounts.

The killing of children, including at least 26 who died in a place called Jebel Mun, and the systematic slaughter of livestock is blatant evidence that civilians and their property continue to be targeted in violation of international humanitarian law. It is questionable whether the proposal of a hybrid African Union-UN force, as outlined at the meeting in Addis-Ababa on 16 November, would have met the needs of the Darfur people or the neighbouring Chadians. It is obvious that the Sudanese Government continues to delay and weaken any further international deployment to the region and wishes to continue with its dirty work.

I support the Human Rights Watch demands that call on the Government of Sudan to cease offensive military flights, as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1591 and defined in the UN panel of experts report of October 2006, and to end its support, mainly funding and arms, to the Janjaweed militias and other paramilitary groups. I also support Human Rights Watch in its demand for an immediate Sudanese Government consent to a strengthened international force in Darfur; its request that the African Union mission in Sudan, AMIS, force and any strengthened international force monitor the Government of Sudan's commitment to cease further support for ethnic militias; and its call on the Sudanese Government to accept international support and extend the mandate of the existing African Union force.

Moreover, I support the application of targeted UN sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, as authorised under UN Security Council Resolution 1591 of March 29 2005, on senior Sudanese Government officials, should they continue to fail to consent to the deployment of a stronger international force in Darfur; sanctions on those individuals or groups responsible for human rights abuses or violations of the May 2006 Darfur peace agreement; and the expansion of the arms embargo provided for by UN Security Council Resolution 1591 to cover all of Sudan, not simply Darfur and the establishment of a nationwide mechanism for monitoring and enforcement. I call on the Government of Chad to cease support for abusive Darfur rebel groups and to consent to a strengthened international force in Darfur and along the border with Chad to deter further attacks on civilians, monitor the existing UN arms embargo and help to implement the Tripoli agreement of February 2006 between Sudan and Chad.

The African Union's Peace and Security Council should unanimously support a robust international protection force with the capacity to protect civilians in Darfur and along the Sudanese-Chad border. I hope the Council members of the African Union will so do at its meeting tomorrow in the Nigerian capital of Abuja. The African Union's slogan is "Africa Must Unite" and this is exactly what its member states must do tomorrow in Nigeria. Darfur is a critical test for the union's Peace and Security Council and its members must unite behind the people of Darfur and eastern Chad, rather than behind governments that abuse these populations.

While the appointment of Andrew Natsios as United States special envoy for Sudan and the recent tougher talk coming from Washington is welcome, it is likely that even more could be achieved by implementing and expanding the reach of some of the measures that have already been agreed by the Security Council and elsewhere. I believe the United States, United Nations, African Union and European Union, acting together to the greatest extent possible, should now apply targeted sanctions; authorise, through the Security Council, a forensic accounting firm or a panel of experts to investigate the offshore accounts of the Sudanese National Congress Party, NCP, and NCP-affiliated businesses, to pave the way for economic sanctions against the regime's commercial entities, the main conduit for financial NCP-allied militias in Darfur; explore sanctions on aspects of Sudan's petroleum sector, which is the NCP's main source of revenue for waging war in Darfur, to include at least bans on investment and provision of technical equipment and expertise; and obtain consent of the Chad Government to deploy a rapid reaction force to that country's border with Sudan and to plan on a contingency basis for a non-consensual deployment to Darfur if political and diplomatic efforts fail to change government policies and the situation worsens.

A United Nations panel of experts has recommended that sanctions be imposed on those who continue to abuse civilians and violate the arms embargo and clearly Khartoum policy makers should be top of this list. Therefore, the European Union and its governments must apply targeted sanctions on the President and other senior Sudanese officials who are responsible for the ongoing military offensive.

What can Ireland do alone? Deputy Carey has already referred to the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, AWEPA. Ireland can do much as a nation and AWEPA has put forward proposals regarding the impact of Irish pensions' divestment in Sudan. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, who is a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, has the opportunity to set a European precedent by divesting the National Pensions Reserve Fund from companies operating in Sudan. This has worked before because a campaign that persuaded major oil firms to divest from Sudan in the late 1990s was one of the decisive factors that forced Khartoum to negotiate an end to its civil war with south Sudan.

There is a clear link between Khartoum's oil revenue and its spending on weaponry used to devastating effect in Darfur. As Sudan is an indebted economy, a major Human Rights Watch report has shown that foreign direct investment in oil makes the all-important difference to Khartoum's military spending. This would be a campaign of intelligent economic pressure. It does not call for blanket divestment or for divestment from industries such as agriculture which would directly affect Sudanese civilians. Instead, it calls for targeted divestment from industries that contribute to Khartoum's war machine.

This would also be a pragmatic, strategic campaign. In respect of the company in which Irish pensions are most heavily invested, namely, the French company Total, the campaign does not call for immediate divestment. Instead, it calls for the Government to use the threat of divestment first and for Total, in turn, to use its leverage on the Sudanese Government to stop the killing in Darfur.

Ireland has signed up its National Pensions Reserve Fund to the UN's principles for responsible investment, which constitutes a real commitment to ethical investment. The US states of Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and California have given this campaign momentum by divesting billions of dollars from Sudan. In Europe, Norway is one of the Scandinavian countries that is said to be considering divesting from Sudan.

Divestment is only one of a number of tactics that might apply intelligent pressure on Khartoum, first to accept a UN peacekeeping force and then to implement the Darfur peace agreement. Further economic sanctions that would target Khartoum's interests abroad and further sanctions remain possible.

See this speech in context