You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa: North
US open to but not waiting for UN participation in Dafur
2004-06-10
excerpted from State Department Daily Press Briefing. Note: I didn’t see the brief but if Boucher isn’t being ironic then he is accidently brilliant. I appologize for the length but Boucher has painted a subtle picture of UN action that I am afraid to disturb with highlighting or chopping.
QUESTION: Yeah. Kofi Annan says he going to appoint a special coordinator for Darfur. Is this something that he is doing in coordination with you and how do you see this fitting in?

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary of State and the Secretary General have talked very frequently recently about Darfur over the weekend as they were working the UN -- talking about the UN resolution and the status of that. I think in every one of four or five different conversations they’ve talked about this situation in Darfur. I’m double-checking my notes here. I guess I had three conversations this week. Already, I’m pretty sure Darfur came up in at least two of those. The Secretary and the Secretary General are both very, very concerned about the situation in Darfur. We have, for a long time, have been taking steps to try to ensure access and relief supplies getting into Darfur. We’ve been pushing very hard to try to end the violence there.

We’ve taken a number of steps, I think, reflecting U.S. leadership. We helped broker a cease-fire between the government and the rebels that was concluded in Chad. We followed up with international monitoring through the African Union. That is, I think, the answer is almost underway still. We do have the first team of monitors in Darfur preparing to begin their operations, so our logistical support has been key to that deployment. We’ve been pushing very hard for full humanitarian access. I point out that, again, in the Secretary’s conversations with the Sudanese Government as we went towards the accords that were so -- that were concluded in Kenya just last Saturday -- I think they’re finally second round of signatures -- every -- just about every conversation we had and the Secretary had with the Sudanese Government we pressed on Darfur. They did institute a new 48-hour visa policy and the removal of travel permits for humanitarian workers traveling to Darfur, but there are still some complications, frankly, in how people travel there.

So we are going to continue working on these issues. We’re going to continue pushing very hard with others in the international community on the Government of Sudan to resolve the situation in Darfur, particularly to end the violence by the militias, and, second of all, to allow full humanitarian access. As far as the updates go, we have this issue now before the UN Security Council, with others in New York. We’re considering how the Security Council can address the situation in Darfur and try to make sure the government doesn’t take any steps to support violence or to block the access for humanitarian workers.
We have made clear to the Government of Sudan that we will not normalize relations with Sudan until the situation in Darfur is satisfactorily resolved. Our embassy discusses this situation in Darfur regularly with officials of the Government of Sudan.

The rains have begun in Nyala in southern Darfur. They have not yet affected the humanitarian aid distribution. But they remind us, once again, of how critical it is to resolve this situation urgently, and we have been pushing very hard and working with others in the international community to do so.
We are trying to step up efforts to increase airlift capacity and pre-position food in regional warehouses before the rains begin. As you know, airlift is expensive. We would normally use land access whenever we could. We’ve had difficulties, so we are continuing to airlift supplies. There was another flight that went in yesterday to Darfur. This is the 11th flight that the United States has supported into Darfur. There are three more scheduled to arrive very soon. Since February of 2003, we have provided $118 million in assistance to Darfur and to eastern Chad, the regions that are affected by this crisis, and we will continue to support the efforts as strongly as we can.

QUESTION: So, about the Coordinator. Sorry.

MR. BOUCHER: So, about the Coordinator, yes, we’ve -- we’re coordinating.

QUESTION: You coordinate.

MR. BOUCHER: We are coordinating with the UN and we’ll coordinate with their Coordinator. (Laughter.) It’s -- I thought it was implied as part of our thing, but it was not said explicitly. Sorry.

QUESTION: So Secretary Powell, obviously, supported this idea in talks he had with --

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, we’re very supportive of everything the United Nations can do, including naming a specific individual who can follow this for them.

QUESTION: Well, what do you think this person is going to be doing?
snip-
Posted by:Super Hose

#12  Shipman, sorry about that.
Posted by: RWV   2004-06-10 11:00:50 PM  

#11  Rex, nobody is calling for a US intervention in the Sudan, at this point. If you remember, this same government hosted UBL and was a repository for "Syrian" WMD supplies - that type of behavior needs to be treated in a fashion that forces the thugs in charge to understand that they don't want to make themselves a high priority for us. We are in Djibouti to train and augment African forces, but also as a visible warning to the neighbors. The time for cleaning out the Sudan will come, but not now.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-06-10 9:06:46 PM  

#10  ima think uncle remus probably a bad choice for an analogy here.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-06-10 7:32:22 PM  

#9  Africa is in such a state that it would be very hard to single out Dafur as the place to start. This is very akin to the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. Once you try to project power anywhere in Africa to protect people, you've hit the tar baby and you're stuck. Other than Morocco, how many countries in Africa don't need US intervention to protect people from the predations of armed warlords and/or perverted governments? The political consequences of an African expedition, no matter how well intentioned, would be the end of any US administration that launched it. Like the tar baby, we'd be stuck and dinner for the predators lurking in the darkness. Let's project our power where it can have effect. If we can turn back the tide of militant Islam, then we can move on to dealing with the thugs, thieves, perverts, and true believers that are turning Africa into Hell on earth.
Posted by: RWV   2004-06-10 6:03:22 PM  

#8  I have zero interest in the US sending our boys to Sudan.

It's time for all the "good" Muslim nations we hear so much about and who live on foreign aid dole from the US to step up to the plate and pacify their Sudanese Muslim brothers who are committing genocide. "Good" Muslim nations need to show cynics like myself that "evil doers" in Sudan are not like the majority of peace loving Muslims. cough, cough

For example, Egypt has a huge military twiddling their thumbs not to mention when is China going to do anything humanitarian to justify their having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council? Sudan just got elected to the Human Rights Committee by other fans in the UN-let those nations that supported Sudan for this position sacrifice their young men.

The US has enough irons in the fire. I don't want Sudan consume more attention then we have to offer. It's unfortunate that there's genocide happening in Sudan, but unless the compassionate posters want to bomb the living daylights out of the Sudanese government, I say no American boots on the ground in that hellhole called Africa. Africans, from leaders to ordinary folks, spout off anti-American, anti-whitey propoganda any chance they get to visiting journalists.Let them wait for their bleeding heart socialist friends that warm the chairs in the UN General Assembly and Security Council to bail them out.

It might interest some of you who call for US intervention to about the enormous challenges of trying to stop the Sudanese Muslim maniacs. It's a death trap, and quite frankly that's not what I want our GI's to walk into, thank you very much, we'll take a pass:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3795269.stm
"Sudan: Big country, big problems" 6/10/04
...But in a report to the UN Security Council this week the secretary-general also set out the scale of challenge in Sudan were the UN to set up a monitoring mission to help implement a comprehensive peace settlement to cement the SPLA-Khartoum peace deal and encompass other conflicts like Darfur.

Sudan, he pointed out, is 35 times larger than Sierra Leone, which, until recently, hosted the largest UN peacekeeping force in the world at a cost of several billion dollars.

Mr Annan did not make the calculation, but the implication was clear.

If it took 17,000 troops to pacify Sierra Leone - where there was also a signed peace agreement - might it therefore take 35 times that number, or some 600,000, to do the same thing in Sudan?

The secretary-general also pointed out, with measured understatement, that there is "a total lack of infrastructure in the south," ensuring that "the United Nations will be working in the most demanding of circumstances."

As a sales pitch for a UN monitoring mission (no-one is seriously considering muscular peacekeeping) the report was sombre.

The distances involved are also huge.

Posted by: rex   2004-06-10 5:47:31 PM  

#7   Niether does the Right Reverand(asshole)Jesse Jackson.
Strange you don't hear much support for the Black African Muslims,from African Americans or Muslems in general around the world.Guess they must be waiting for those damned bigotted white folks to do something.
Posted by: Raptor   2004-06-10 5:40:06 PM  

#6  No.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-06-10 5:26:59 PM  

#5  I would rather say that Bush is using soft power while hard power is employed elsewhere, but the Sudanese know that the US is in theater - Djibouti is not so far away. Sudan is certainly a legitimate target with repsect to the WOT, as the Sudanese government is fully aware. The ghost of Rawanda no longer haunts America. After 9/11 only the truly dumb will prop up their type of regime. Prior to 9/11 Aristide might have been propped up in Haiti when the Black Caucus ......
Hey, wait a minute doesn't Charles Rangle care about the dying Sudanese?
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-06-10 5:13:03 PM  

#4  Bush does not want the Sudan to be his "Rwanda".

Posted by: danking70   2004-06-10 4:16:46 PM  

#3  In short, "We are coordinating how we are going to ignore the situation in western Sudan while we feed the Sudanese troops and insure the milita have enough to eat when they are not raping 12 year old girls or killing the men and boys...".

[Note: All humanatarian aid must pass thru the government and be delivered by government trucks in government marked packages...]

Questions for Mr Boucher: How many were killed while you were 'discussing' the matter with the UN during lunch? How many women and children were raped? How many villages razed?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-06-10 12:02:54 PM  

#2  And, of course, at the urgent meeting, the first agenda item will be to set and approve the luncheon menu.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-10 11:30:40 AM  

#1  It's an urgent situation! Starvation, Genocide! Quickly, we must call a meeting and get another round of signatures!
Posted by: B   2004-06-10 9:02:06 AM  

00:00