An Empty Threat

Today, the U.S. special envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, (for an interesting interview with him, go to this link) told reporters that the U.S. will go through its own strategic process if the Sudanese government does not accept U.N. personnel and forces in its Darfur region by the end of the year. Natsios was vague about what steps the U.S. would take if Sudan does not accept a compromise peacekeeping force, but it has been reported that the U.S. and the Security Council could impose anything from travel bans and asset freezes to imposition of a no-fly zone. While this aggressive talk by the U.S. special envoy is welcome after three years of genocide and massive human rights abuses, the question is: how willing and able is the U.S. to pursue the more belligerent of its strategic options? The Security Council has already had enormous difficulty getting sanctions, travel bans and asset freezes approved because of financial and political ties to Sudan, and the imposition of no-fly zones requires military mobilization and political clout that the U.S. does not have extra supply of right now. Can the U.S. and the Security Council actually back up Mr. Natsios' threat? The U.S. and U.N. have already been fairly ineffective using their mechanisms (the UN Human Rights Council effectively punted on the issue by sending investigators, but not condemning the atrocities there, after months of inactivity) and so what happens if this is a bluff and Sudan calls it?