Discussion on Sudan

12:00 P.M. EST

MS. NISBET: I'd like to welcome Ambassador Danforth and Ambassador Hall. They're both here to discuss humanitarian assistance in Sudan and Chad. We will start with Ambassador Hall and then come back to Ambassador Danforth. And then we'll open up for questions. And please state your name and affiliation before asking your questions. Thank you.

Ambassador Hall.

AMBASSADOR HALL: Okay. Ambassador Danforth, it's good to be with you.

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: Thank you. It's good to be with you.

AMBASSADOR HALL: It's a little bit past 6 o'clock here in Rome time at night. We're glad to be with you and I want to talk a little bit about Libya and Darfur. It's kind of like that old movie of Clint Eastwood's, you now, "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly?"

The good was our trip to Libya, which was very short but what we did is, we flew down to a southeast city in southern -- in southern Libya called Al Kufrah where 40 trucks hired by the World Food Program full of American food was its way going from north to south from the port of Banghazi out of Libya, going down into Chad to feed several hundred thousand people as a result of the Darfur conflict.

It was truly an historical humanitarian event because we were going through the country of Libya. It was all American food, and it was being handled by the UN. And it's significant in that one of the problems that we have in Darfur is it's very difficult to reach. There's only -- up until last week there was only two ways where food could come in. It came in from Port Sudan or it came from Cameroon. And the distances from Port Sudan and Cameroon are very difficult. Sometimes they're treacherous. And especially in the rainy season, the trucks get bogged down and they just can't make it. Therefore, with all these camps in Darfur and Chad, food won't get there.

So as a result of opening this new route in Libya, it was really an amazing, really an exciting historical event. I have to congratulate the Libyans for their cooperation. And it was truly a good event. And that event, that opening of the third corridor will feed lots of people. It'll feed several hundred thousand people, especially in Chad, and eventually in Sudan.

From there, we originally went to Khartoum then to Darfur. We were in Darfur almost three days. And we stayed out in the field a couple nights. We first went to El Fashir and we visited two camps: Abu Shouk and Zam Zam. Then we went down to Nyala, visited a camp there in south Darfur called Kalma. Then we took a helicopter on the third day to a camp called Zalingei in west Darfur.

I guess if I had to characterize what we saw in a very short time was that: Number one, there's great fear. The people in Darfur, I can't remember ever -- and I've been to a lot of camps, and have been to a lot of countries in this world where we've had refugees and IDPs -- I can't remember a country where we have 130 to 140 camps in one country, in one region of one country.

And the reason why they're there is that they live in fear. They don't trust the government. They don't trust the police. They don't trust the Jingaweit. They don't necessarily trust the rebels. And as a result, they've congregated together and they've formed these camps, and the World Food Program, FAO, and a lot of NGOs have been doing their best to feed them and it's a tremendous challenge. So they live in fear. They're not going to leave those camps until they feel that they have some security.

And that's the second biggest issue is the lack of security in the area. There's just -- people don't feel secure. The women, they go out at night to gather firewood or during the day, maybe to try to make a little bit of money on farms that might be working, and it's just -- it doesn't work out for them because they get violently attacked, oftentimes raped.

The men, of course, they can't go out. They'll get either beat up or killed.

The third big issue, of course, is that if they don't go back in the next four or five months; if they don't go back to their lands, their villages, if they don't go back to plant, there won't be a harvest next year. And if there's not a harvest next year and they don't go back, therefore, we're going to have these people for at least two more years. And that's a very, very -- this is a very troubling, challenging, and a very expensive operation.

I do have to say that the UN organization of the World Food Program, many of the NGOs, our own people, a lot of people that we're working with on the ground have done a tremendous job. They've done a tremendous job without security; and it's a very, very dangerous place, but I do want to applaud especially the World Food Program, OCHA and some other UN organizations and NGOs that have been doing a good job.

Our commitment in Sudan, and as many of you know, and Darfur is very significant -- we are -- in the last -- the United States, in the last 13 months, we have given $360 million in food and in money just for the Darfur situation. And in the last 12 months, we will have given about 195 million for all of Sudan, mostly in the southern part of Sudan. And this comes to over a half a billion dollars inside of 13 months. So our commitment is big. That amounts to about 53 to 60 percent of everything that's going into the country, really, is coming from the United States.

There's still a lot of people that we are not able to reach. When I was there, there were about 250- to 300,000 people that we can't reach, but because they basically closed down north Darfur region because of violence last week shortly after we left, we're probably now up to maybe 650,000 people that we can't get to because we just can't protect our humanitarian workers.

The crop this year is dismal. They'll be lucky to get 15 percent of the total crop, and herein lies the problem why we have to get so much food into the area. I met with the governor of north Darfur and the first thing he said without me even raising the issues, said, you know, there's no genocide here; there's no problems here; we're all one big family; there's no conflicts here. And if there's any problems here or any rapes here, it's all coming from the other side. And, of course, 48 hours after that conversation, north Darfur pretty much came apart and still is, and many of the people in his camps, in those camps up there, we can't reach because there's too much conflict, too much violence.

Twenty-three percent of the children are acutely malnourished. And if you get to 16 percent in any crisis, that's considered an emergency.

A couple other issues: We just -- we need a lot more pressure put on the Government of Sudan and the warring parties. We need more eyes on the ground. We need the kind of resolutions, the things that you're doing, Ambassador, keeping the pressure up, are very, very important. If we can increase the AU troops, that would be wonderful. We don't see them much. As a matter of fact, we saw them once in the three days that we were there. But you've got to remember, there's only a little bit over 800 of them there right now and they're spread pretty thin. But they're pretty bold. They're pretty brave. They go into a situation, especially after a conflict where there's a lot of tension, where there's been a lot of violence, and they're doing a pretty good job. And hopefully, by the middle of January we'll have somewhere around 3,500 to 3,400 AU troops in there.

I think people also need to know that those who commit the crimes against humanity will be punished, and that there needs to be -- we need to keep very accurate records, not only the UN and the AU troops, we need to keep very good records because of crimes against humanity.

There's a problem that could arise, we were told while we were there. It's an old law that was passed in Sudan in 1982 that says in so many words that if you have not been on your land for one year, you lose the rights; somebody can come on your land and take it from you. And in a couple months, hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of these people, they will have been gone long enough where if this law really kicks in, they could lose their land, their house, whatever they have.

At the Zalingei camp, which is out in western Darfur, we saw many, many women that were extremely hungry. And you can always tell when people are hungry when they thank you. And when people are used to the food, they don't necessarily thank you, but when they're really hungry, and they have been without food for about seven weeks.

We saw lots of burned down villages in north Darfur and west Darfur as we flew over in the helicopter. People were pushed out of the villages. They were beat up and they were roughed up. And we saw the villages burned down.

I talked to one lady who had walked 150 kilometers to the Abu Shouk camp. I talked to a midwife who said, in so many words, there have been so many rapes. And she talked one night about four young women coming in, one woman who was a virgin had been raped by eight different men, and another lady who was pregnant and they took a stake and rammed it into her and, you know, aborted her child. These are some of the stories. I could go on, but I've spoken long enough, and back to you, Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: Well, that was an excellent briefing by Ambassador Hall and it's important to note that Ambassador Hall was in Darfur. I think he said that he was there three days. And at approximately the same time he was in Darfur the Security Council was in Nairobi relating to the so-called Naivasha peace process, the north-south peace process. Some people have raised the question of what's the relationship between the two. There is a very strong relationship between the two. But the important point to make is that we have to keep focused on the Naivasha peace process at the same time, we have to keep focused on Darfur. There is no contradiction there. And the fact is that when the Security Council was in Nairobi, with respect to the Naivasha part of this problem, Ambassador Hall was in Darfur. In other words, the focus is on both at the same time very intensely felt. Sudan is a great tragedy and it has been a great tragedy for many years. The current phase of the north-south civil war between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan has been going on 21 years and 2 million-plus people have died as a result of a very, very longstanding civil war.

I was President Bush's Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan dealing with that war between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM and trying to encourage, along with other countries, the peace process. Meanwhile, approximately two years ago, a little less than two years ago, another war broke out in the western part of the country. And that has created the tragedy of Darfur where tens of thousands of people -- I'm not sure of the exact number Ambassador Hall probably knows it right off the top of his head -- tens of thousands of people have died in Darfur.

So we've got to deal with both of these tragedies and we've got to deal with the relationship between the two. Now, what the people with whom I have spoken, including the Secretary General, including the Special Representative for Sudan, Mr. Pronk, including John Garang, the head of the SPLM, everybody who knows Sudan, and including the Government of Sudan, believes that there is a connection between the north-south peace process and the issue in Darfur.

The reason is that if there is a peace agreement between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan, it provides the framework for a federal system, which is able to incorporate into one country, diverse interests. And therefore, the framework for a political settlement in the Darfur area is provided should there be peace agreements between the north and the south.

The SPLM and the Government of Sudan, in our presence two weeks ago tomorrow, signed a Memorandum of Understanding stating that they would agree on a comprehensive peace agreement by December 31st. That is very important. It's very important for all of the people of Sudan and it's very important for the people of Darfur.

Secondly, with respect to Darfur, one of the most important things, and Ambassador Hall mentioned this, is to have an outside presence on the ground, eyes who are present watching Darfur. This is the significance of the African Union. The African Union has committed to approximately 3,500 people. That number may be increased. It probably will be increased. The Secretary General's Special Representative, Mr. Pronk, thinks that the number should be doubled. The Vice President, First Vice President of Sudan, indicated in our presence when we were in Nairobi that he would be -- the Government of Sudan would be agreeable to that if that's what was necessary. But the African Union presence plus the humanitarian workers' presence plus any other presence we can think of is very important for Darfur as a moderating influence on the terrible tragedy there.

One thing that I think is important to point out is that while in two different Security Council resolutions we have certainly pointed the finger at the Government of Sudan, and they deserve to have their finger pointed at them, nobody's hands are clean. And I think, again, Ambassador Hall made this clear. The Government and the rebels in Darfur have each been complicit in creating this terrible tragedy, and it's time to end it.

So thank you very much for being here and I think that any questions you have now to either of us would be welcome.

QUESTION: Okay. I'm Solomon Aderiye of the Africa Independent Television based here in New York.

My question would be for both, actually, to try to see how crisis of this nature tend to keep coming and running and running for years. Ambassador Danforth here just mentioned 21 years since this crisis has been lingering. How come we can't nip it in the bud before it degenerates into genocide or something even worse than that? Why should we allow it to linger for so long? This question boggles my mind, because I believe the United States and other countries of the world have the capacity to nip this thing in the bud.

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: I wish that were true. I really do. I really wish that we here in New York or in Washington or someplace else could solve problems around the world. I think we can help. We can help with humanitarian relief. We can help by attempting to be catalysts for a peace process. But I don't -- and the more I think about it, the less I think that any outside force can bring peace to another part of the world. We can help, but we can't bring it.

Sudan, geographically, is a very large country. It's the size of the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Darfur is the size of France. These are very, very large areas. Sudan lies on a north-south axis on the -- spanning the diving line between Arab Africa and the black Africa. It's a large country that was pieced together in colonial times, but it has within it very different people, very different ethnic groups, very different religious groups, pieced together, really, artificially, by colonial governments a hundred years ago or so. And therein has been the north-south problem.

Now, with respect to Darfur, and Ambassador Hall knows Darfur much better than I do, but Darfur is an issue that relates to Arab nomadic interests -- in black Africa, more settled agricultural interests -- two peoples claiming essentially the same real estate. These are very, very difficult issues to deal with, and it requires a real commitment to do it. And also, it requires a legal system, a constitutional system, which makes it possible to incorporate into one country, diverse interests.

The north-south peace agreement is designed to help do that through the creation of a federal system where there is the central government, but where there are very clear, strong roles to be played by provincial governments as well, plus a sharing of the resources of the country on a provincial level, which makes it possible for people to stay within a country, and at the same time, believe that they have an interest in being in that country. So all of this is very difficult.

But it's -- essentially, we can help. We can encourage them. One of the reasons why the Security Council went to Nairobi was to lay out for both sides in the Naivasha process what the international commitment would be to a peaceful Sudan by way of development assistance, by way of monitoring, and the international community is going to be there, but I don't know of any way that anybody from outside a country can create a peaceful country artificially.

AMBASSADOR HALL: I don't know if I can add much to that, but -- it was such an excellent answer -- but I would say that Sudan didn't allow access to many people until May of this year. I wish that we could wave a magic wand at the different crises that we have in the world right now. At any one time in the past ten years that I can remember, we've always had somewhere between 35 and 40 crises, and this is one of them. And I wish we had some way where we could speak and the crisis would go away. It doesn't. A lot of the people, especially in Sudan, they dig in, and these are tough people.

When I was speaking to the governor of north Darfur, I mean, he didn't admit to anything. As a matter of fact, it was the other side that did everything. And there was no conflict; there was no violence; there were no rapes; there was no problem. He said we're all Arabs here. How can you tell there's a difference between us?

So I think that, you know, what we're doing, humanitarian-wise, is significant, very significant. I mean -- and, but it's not just Sudan, it's the Congo, it's Ethiopia as well. And I'm very proud and excited about the commitment of the United States Government and how much food and humanitarian services that we give the people. Just remember, we have almost 60 percent of everything that's going on in Sudan today, and in the Congo, it's about 70 percent of everything. In Ethiopia, it would have been over 70 percent. So we don't take a back seat to anybody when it comes to helping, encouraging, hopefully strengthening. So -- but thank you for the question. It's a difficult question.

QUESTION: Barbara Schoetzau, VOA.

I'm just wondering, and it's an equally difficult question, how on December 31st one can expect 3,500 AU troops to enforce something like this? I mean, they're not humanitarian workers. Along, I think, as part of that, can -- the government to date says it has nothing to do with the Jingaweit but it can't control the Jingaweit, so I'm sure that this came up in those discussions also. And then I'd further the question to Ambassador Hall to ask, you know, what possible guarantee you can give to these people that they should leave the camps and go home, when the only vague idea of security they have is 3,500 people in a country that you've just described as being so enormous?

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: Ambassador Hall, what --

QUESTION: I direct the first part for you and the second part for Ambassador Hall, the first part being about enforcing with AU troops by December 31st.

AMBASSADOR HALL: There is no guarantee, if I can address your question here from Rome. There is no guarantee that the people are going to go home. And, you know, you've got somewhere between 130, 140 camps now in Darfur, and I'm not sure how many camps in Chad, but the fact is that these people are scared. They live in fear. They dare not go outside their camps.

I will say, though, of the AU troops that are there now, they have performed well. I mean, from what I heard, and they've been very bold, very courageous. They're not afraid to mix it up and get into the middle of the situation, trying to find out what's going on. We only have about 800 now. If we can get up to 3,500 -- but I think that's still not enough -- if we could double it or even triple it, it would go a long way of giving the people some encouragement. But they have no encouragement now. Everybody takes advantage of them: The police take advantage of them; they have no confidence in the government; the Jingaweit waits for them to come out of the camp; and the rebels, you know, they've got blood on their hands, too.

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: The question is, what are the tools available and what offers some prospect of working? And I think that with respect to Darfur, the two steps that offer the best prospect of success are, first of all, African Union presence and other outside presence in Darfur -- the more, the better; and secondly, to complete the Naivasha peace process. Now, I think those are the two most practical steps.

Other people have suggested other possibilities. Some people have suggested, although I don't think they have really pressed the point, well, maybe a military invasion of Sudan. That's not going to happen. It's certainly not going to happen with the Security Council approving it. The Security Council won't approve that.

But it would be a very substantial, huge military operation that would be there forever. This would not be a brief thing. You're talking about caring for people and protecting people long-term.

So I don't think that's going to happen. And then some people think, well, if we were to impose sanctions -- we, the UN -- against the Government of Sudan, that would bring the government to heel and it would fix the problem of Darfur. There are several problems with that, one being that while the U.S. now has, itself, comprehensive sanctions against the Government of Sudan, the Security Council is not going to do that. In fact, we -- in the two resolutions that we have passed -- we spoke about considering the possibility of measures, under Article 41, but we were not able to use the word "sanctions" in the resolution because we couldn't get the resolution passed with that word in it.

So sanctions is not a real option. Now, even if it were, would sanctions work? The U.S. unilateral sanctions have certainly not influenced the behavior of Sudan, the Government of Sudan. But I think it is fair to say that the most serious economic relationship that Sudan has is with China, with respect to oil production. China is not going to impose sanctions. It's not going to be a party to that. So I just don't see those as real possibilities.

So you're saying, well -- I ask myself, you know, what are the tools that are at hand here, I mean, practically speaking, what are the things that can be done? And I think what can be done is, again, outside presence, especially African Union presence, plus a successful conclusion of the overall peace process.

QUESTION: Unfair question, I guess, but do you think more pressure can be --

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: I've never had an unfair question from the media. (Laughter.) This is for Ambassador Hall, I assume.

QUESTION: This one's actually for you. Do you think more pressure can be put on China?

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: No. I mean, you know something; there was a resolution in the Third Committee of the General Assembly to condemn human rights abuses in Darfur. This was last week, middle of last week. And it was tabled, a procedural motion to take it off the table. And it was tabled very handily. And of the 15 countries on the Security Council, seven, including the United States, voted to proceed with this resolution. One, to abstain, and seven members of the Security Council voted to table it. So you're not just talking about China in the Security Council. You're talking about other countries as well.

QUESTION: I'm Judy Aita with the Washington File. On that issue and the Naivasha process, it isn't completed. Are you optimistic, confident that there will be agreement by December 31st? And do you feel that what happened last week with the vote and the Third Committee might have any effect in terms of, you know, weakening -- giving the government more encouragement to kind of, you know, hang tough and not, you know, proceed to an agreement?

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: Well, to me, what we did in Nairobi was the highest and best use of the Security Council. Because what we did was we created a stage and we turned on the lights and we rolled the drums and we created tremendous visibility. And with that tremendous visibility and with 15 members of the Security Council standing behind representatives of the two sides, they signed a solemn agreement, a promise, that they would complete a comprehensive peace agreement by December 31st. Now, that is their solemn obligation, their promise made very publicly before the Security Council and before the world. And we absolutely expect them to keep their promise.

QUESTION: Choongo Moonga, Incisive Media, United Kingdom

Do you see an expanded role for Libya or is it going to remain as a pass-through country where you just will be using it to deliver food to Sudan? Or did you ever discuss the possibility of having Libya take maybe an active role in the Sudan?

And also for Ambassador Hall, would you comment on the expulsion of officials from British aid work -- aid agencies in the Sudan? Have you taken that at your level or at the World Food Program?

And then here for Ambassador Danforth, can we expect a full-length peacekeeping operation in the Sudan where a multinational force would be, you know, in force, you know, would be made available to actually act? My impression is that the forces, the AU forces that are in there, as you say, they're just moderation of forces. They are not actually, you know, helping planes that are coming down to bomb villages. Can you foresee that?

AMBASSADOR HALL: Do you want me to take the first set of questions? In regard to Libya, the interesting thing about the agreement that was worked out with Libya and World Food Program and the United States is that they were willing to make this agreement to help other countries for the next ten years, that they can use their country for a variety of things, not just the pass-through of food into Chad and into Sudan, but to any other problem in Africa that might occur. We thought that this was a tremendous breakthrough and we thought it very, very significant.

Secondly, this is not the one and only shipment of food that's going to go through Libya coming from America. We have another shipment coming in January. And we think that this third corridor not only is the safest, the least expensive, but certainly in the long run, if we really have severe rains, will be maybe the only route, and especially during the rainy season.

Number two is Libya -- are they playing a role? And what we have heard when we were in Libya is that Colonel Qadhafi had been calling a lot of the heads of tribes, various leaders in Darfur, together to come into Libya to sit down and talk about how they can work out their differences. So they are involved, they want to be involved more, and I look at it as a very encouraging sign.

The aid workers that you were talking about, they have not been dismissed yet. But the fact is is that it's kind of an ongoing kind of a situation. And these aid workers, these NGOs, are really the ones that do so much of the work in small villages and towns and camps that nobody else can do, and we rely upon them. The World Food Program relies upon them to get the job done. So we're watching what's going on. All of us are very much against the expulsion of these people and we are expressing that, and we hope it doesn't happen.

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: The United Nations has already made a study of what would be necessary with respect to peacekeeping throughout Sudan and the Security Council committed itself to that effort. And given a comprehensive peace agreement, there would be peacekeepers; there would be monitors in the country. And that would be incorporated with, coordinated with whatever the African Union presence is in Darfur. So yes, there will be monitors. If there is peace, it does not take huge numbers of monitors. If there's war, that's not peacekeepers. I mean, that's -- that doesn't work. But if there is peace, then a relatively small number of people who are monitors can monitor and help keep the peace.

We found out back in 2002, when the parties agreed to protocols related to four pieces that we had put together, helped put together to test the seriousness of the two sides in the north-south problem, and one of the four pieces was the protection of civilians. And we put a -- there was a very small number of monitors put into the country for the sake of helping monitor and guarantee that part of the provision, and it worked.

QUESTION: Sanita Upleja-Jegermane, Diena newspaper, Latvia

It's about the United Nations High Level Panel and the report coming out today. First of all, what do you think of it? And second, is the United States willing to lead the effort to reform the United Nations, so it would succeed, really, this time?

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: The report is being made public today. We welcome the report of the High Level Panel. We think that this is a serious piece of work and that it's an important piece of work. We are going to have to spend some time analyzing precisely what the various pieces are and what the implications are. There are something like a hundred, I think more than a hundred, different recommendations in the report, so obviously, it takes some analysis.

There is a recognition that the world's problems have changed dramatically since the United Nations was created. There are different problems now that really weren't anticipated at that time, and these are pointed out in the report. So the report is going to generate, I think, worldwide, a very serious analysis of where the UN is today, what the suggestions are and where we go from here. But we think that this is a very good starting point.

QUESTION: The United States will be in the reform, leading to reform the UN?

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: Well, it's certainly interested in it and I think that there are going to be a lot of leaders who are going to be involved in this. I mean, there are 191 members of the United Nations and I would guess that each one of them would consider themselves as a leader. So the U.S. is certainly going to be very, very involved in it with other countries.

QUESTION: A quick one, to go away from Darfur, if you excuse me, sir. Is there a way now between President Bush and Kofi Annan?

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: As far as I know, yes. I think, you know, I had the privilege in September, when President Bush was in New York attending the meeting he had with the Secretary General, and it was a very cordial meeting.

MS. NISBET: Ambassador Hall, do you have any closing remarks?

AMBASSADOR HALL: No, I don't have any closing remarks. We have a number of UN organizations here in Rome. We have the World Food Program, and the FAO, and we have IFAD. And we, the United States Government, has a very good relationship with the World Food Program, and they do a lot of independent evaluation. They do a lot of their reforms and we think that they're an excellent organization.

And we have just, in the FAO, we have just -- our mission here has just passed and secured a very good reform that's going to be upcoming in the next 12 months, and that is an independent evaluation of FAO by an independent evaluator. And we expect it to be a good one and that will help that organization.

MS. NISBET: Thank you.

AMBASSADOR HALL: That's all I have, and it's great to be with you, Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR DANFORTH: It's very good to be with you, too. I admire your work greatly, and I have for a long period of time. So thank you very much what you're doing.

AMBASSADOR HALL: I admire your work, too. Thank you. You're very kind.

MS. NISBET: Thank you both.