President George W. Bush's policy of using persuasion rather than punishment to promote peace in Sudan was bitterly criticised last week by some members of the US Congress and by leaders of lobby groups. 

Clashes over Washington's approach to Khartoum broke out at a June 4 committee hearing in the US House of Representatives. The session featured a testy exchange between the Bush team's top Africa policymaker and a Democratic Congressman who charged that failure to get tougher with Sudan amounted to "playing with human lives." 

The dispute over the most effective of ending Sudan's civil war highlighted the long-standing issue of whether the US should seek normal relations with the Islamist regime or intensify efforts to destabilise it. In recent months, President Bush has favoured a softer line of approach, but advocates of a no-compromise stance are warning that Khartoum cannot be trusted to negotiate a settlement to the 19-year-old conflict with rebels in the southern half of the country. 

The controversy focused last week on a move to prevent foreign companies from developing Sudan's oil resources by preventing them from raising capital in the US. That proposed sanction against non-US firms is contained in a Bill approved by the US House one year ago by a margin of 422-2. President Bush's allies in the Senate, however, are blocking efforts to enact the proposal into law. 

American companies are already forbidden from doing business in Sudan. Some members of the House International Relations Committee called for action on the plan to dissuade Canadian, European and Asian companies from helping Sudan tap its sizeable oil reserves.

Khartoum uses oil revenue to finance its assaults on rebel troops and civilian populations in the south, said Republican Congressman Chris Smith. 

"If you cut the spigot, you stop the war," he declared. But Walter Kansteiner, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, argued strongly against the attempt to block access to US capital markets. Such political interference in free markets is exactly what he urges African governments to forego, Mr Kansteiner told the committee.

It was that statement that prompted Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos to fire back: "So far, we're playing with human lives."

The California lawmaker was referring to the estimated two million Sudanese who have died in the course of the civil war. Non-governmental experts testifying at the June 4 hearing endorsed the effort to punish foreign companies that do business in Sudan's oil fields. 

Michael Young, head of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, said the Bush administration's special envoy for peace in Sudan is proceeding from a flawed premise in arguing that neither side can win the civil war.

"Whether or not Khartoum can win the war is not the question. The point is that Khartoum thinks it can win the war, especially with hundreds of millions of dollars in oil revenue pouring in," Mr Young said. 

Eric Reeves, a Sudan specialist at Smith College in Massachusetts, charged that the Canadian oil firm Talisman is "the very embodiment of Western corporate evil in Sudan." The company, which has played a leading role in developing Sudan's oil resources, is complicit with "genocidal destruction," Prof Reeves declared.

Talisman's airstrips in Sudan are used by Khartoum's helicopter gunships for attacks on civilians, he said. 

The Bush team's policy was further faulted on the grounds that it had failed to prod Sudan's rulers into implementing "confidence-building measures" specified by US Special Envoy John Danforth. 

Assistant Secretary Kansteiner disagreed, citing one "important accomplishment in our engagement."

Khartoum has allowed humanitarian relief to be delivered to the Nuba Mountains, he pointed out.

While former Senator Danforth's peace mission has achieved "moderate successes on symptomatic humanitarian issues," it has so far not addressed the root causes of the conflict, added John Prendergast, an NGO official with long experience in Sudan. Prendergast warned.