UNGA: Review on Africa

MS. NISBET: I'd like to introduce Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs. Thank you so much for being here during this busy week. She's here to talk about the outcome on some of the meetings that have taken place this week with African leaders as well as the forum she just hosted, the African Education Forum. And I will go ahead and let you take it from here. After her opening remarks, we can then go to Q&A. Please state your name and affiliation before asking your question. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, thank you very much. Just briefly, we've had a very full schedule on the Africa front here at the UN General Assembly this year. We started following up from the First Lady's Global Literacy Conference to host an African Education Forum for African first ladies and ministers of education to focus on social development needs, the relationship between addressing education and dealing with HIV and AIDS and other diseases. It was a very constructive dialogue that clearly indicated the common problems that many African countries are facing. And we're going to follow up with creating a network of first ladies and ministers of education to share information and look at lessons learned and how we can address some of these common challenges.

We've also had a number of meetings primarily focused on Sudan and trying to address the problems in Darfur, trying to find a solution to the crisis in Darfur. We've held meetings with -- President Bush met with President Kikwete of Tanzania. Secretary Rice has met with Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She will also meet with Sassou-Nguesso of Congo-Brazzaville, President of Congo-Brazzaville. And I've met with many other presidents and foreign ministers, again focused on trying to find a common solution to the challenge of the Government of Sudan, basically standing up to the international community and saying that it will continue its military offensive against a population in Darfur and will not allow UN peacekeepers to come into Sudan.

There are other crises across Africa. We have the challenges in Cote d'Ivoire and there have been constructive meetings and dialogue on a way forward after the October 31st constitution basically comes to an end. And so we are continuing our dialogue from -- throughout this week as well as next week and I certainly will look forward to any questions that you might have any part of it.

QUESTION: I'm Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. I'm surprised -- or did Somali and the situation in Somali, the attempted assassination of the President in Islamic Courts, have you discussed that at all with any leaders?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Yes, I've had a chance to discuss it with particularly chairperson Konare of the African Union, the chairperson of the secretary to the African Union. And also I had an opportunity to discuss it with the Foreign Minister of Uganda, Foreign Minister Kutesa and the Foreign Minister of Kenya, Foreign Minister Tuju. And later this afternoon I will meet with Foreign Minister Migiro from Tanzania and we will also have a chance to discuss a way ahead in Somali. In addition I've met -- or I've had a chance to discuss it briefly with Lord Triesman from the UK.

QUESTION: My name's Yoav Fromer. I write for an international Israeli publication Maariv. It's a bit more analytic. There was a study a few months ago released by the National Bureau of Economics called "Artificial Borders." And they looked at the third world, specifically at Africa, from (inaudible) economic department at Harvard. And, you know, they came up with an assumption which is quite -- is probable that a lot of the problems in Africa today are a direct result of the artificial borders that were left from the colonial period. And I know that this isn't that timely, but the question is: Is this something that like has really been discussed? I mean, American foreign policy towards Africa supporting some kind of demarcation or redrawing of certain borders which -- in conflicted areas, you know. This specifically pointed to, let's say, Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Southern Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Cameroon, some areas in Western Africa.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, certainly this has been an analytical explanation for conflict in Africa for many, many years. It's not a new explanation. And the OAU, the Organization of African Unity, decided that it was going to accept and maintain the borders as established at the end of the colonial period. And so there hasn't been any desire or push to try to redraw the borders. But as you correctly say, some of the challenges are finding the legitimate demarcated border. You know, it's so much redrawing, it's just establishing where exactly that border fits.

Is Bonsai, for example, in Ethiopia or is it Eritrea? And so that process is also one that we saw between Cameroon and Nigeria with Bakassi trying to demarcate that border. And it's clear that we need a process and I think that the United Nations has done a fairly effective job at helping countries that have the political will to demarcate their borders. But the source of conflict in Africa is not former borders; it's relations between neighbors and it's also -- because if there's goodwill between two countries, they can get the border demarcated. And it's also governance within countries.

President Bush is fond of saying that democratic governments do not fight each other. Obviously this comes out of an academic study that, you know, was based -- especially in Europe that shows that democracies historically have not fought each other. So good governance internally, I think is really the answer to conflict in Africa and we see that in Sudan. The problems of Sudan stem from the fact that there's an elite in the center of Arabs who have not allowed power and wealth to be shared throughout the country, whether that's in Eastern Sudan, in Western Sudan in Darfur, or in South Sudan. And so I think that we need to not look at the borders as the source of conflict but rather governance.

QUESTION: I'm Oyiza Adaba with African Independent Television. It's a pleasure to meet you. Yesterday, President Bashir said that "he would never allow Sudan to become another Iraq." Could you react to that statement?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, it's interesting that President Bashir would say that when he's deployed 10,000 troops to attack villages throughout Darfur. The humanitarian crisis in Darfur and the atrocities that are taking place are the result of President Bashir's policies. So in the sense of not allowing it to become another Iraq in which there are insurgencies taking place, he's already done that. We can look 22 years back at two million people dead in Southern Sudan and recognize the nature of this regime. And the fact that it has deployed 10,000 troops and are bombing villages today, two million people in IDP camps, hundreds of thousands who have died over the last three years suggest to me that what President Bashir has created in Sudan is far worse than anything that we're seeing in Iraq today.

QUESTION: Can I follow up? My name is Yoshikazu Shirakawa of Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun. A few days ago, President Bush has appointed a new envoy on Sudan and can you tell us how the new envoy will approach or persuade Sudan, especially President Bashir to accept UN forces in two or three months?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Yeah. The President's Special Envoy, Andrew Natsios, will become -- will be part of a team that includes and is led by the President himself, the Secretary of State, myself and others, to continue to work diplomatically to bring pressure to bear on President Bashir. We basically need to isolate him so that he does not believe that he can thwart the will of the international community. It's very clear that President Bashir is basically saying that he should be allowed impunity in carrying out the atrocities that are taking place and that his Government does not have to listen to either the other member states of the African Union or the United Nations as represented by the UN Security Council.

And so I would expect Andrew Natsios to continue to engage diplomatically, to speak out to help us as an Administration articulate our policy and also to be part of the process of formulating our strategies and our continued diplomacy to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Darfur and to work with the southern -- the people Government of National Unity to strengthen a Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the south. So he will be an integral part of a team.

QUESTION: (O. Adaba) What is the plan B -- after three months, after the extension runs out?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, the problem with -- you know, we support the African Union and we have felt that we cannot allow a day to go by without peacekeepers in Darfur. But we can't wait for three months. The plan B has to start now. And the African Union needs to look seriously at how over the next three months it can get the transition to a UN to take place. And I say that because the -- when I've talked -- the consultation that I've done with African leaders and foreign ministers and the readout that I've gotten of the AU Peace and Security Council is that they extended their mandate on three promises. The first promise being that the Government of Sudan said that they could augment their forces. The problem with that promise is the Government of Sudan itself has prevented them from getting communication gear that comes through the Port of Sudan. The Government of Sudan has dismantled the armored personnel carriers that they bring in and then put them together without certain parts, so they're inoperable. The Government of Sudan has held up visas so that forces can't rotate in. The force commander himself is sitting in Addis Ababa waiting for a visa, so the government has crippled the AU force. So to promise that it can augment itself I think is a very questionable promise.

Secondly, they extended their mandate on the promise of the Arab League to provide financial assistance. Currently the United States is a major donor, the major contributor to the AMIS force. The Arab League is saying that it will pick up the tab. We had a donors' conference in Brussels recently. No Arab country pledged any money, except for Qatar which re-pledged the money it had pledged before in March of 2006. So they haven't put any money on the table for all of this time.

Over the last two years we've seen no money from the Arab League. So that's again a very questionable promise. And the third promise is based on the United Nations saying that it can't show up until January and how can we allow -- how is it that the United Nations can deploy a peacekeeping force in Lebanon in a matter of months? And we've been talking about the transition of the AU to a UN force since January of 2006 and the United Nations is saying they can't show up until January of 2007, a year later? That's a promise that we can't -- has no credibility.

And so I think that on all three accounts, the assurances that the African Union has received are very problematic and it leaves us without a real solution to the atrocities that are taking place against the people of Darfur. If I were in Darfur right now, I would look to African leaders and I would say why are you betraying us? Why are you leaving us helpless? And frankly, if I were African troops, who are sitting there without fuel, they can't even move around, I would say, why are you leaving me sitting out here having to witness the killing without the ability to respond? I think African countries will have to answer that question and we as a world community will have to answer that question.

QUESTION: (M. Lee) You mentioned that you met with the Foreign Minister of Uganda. In his speech to the GA, he said, you know, that they had sort of in a bittersweet way granted amnesty or purported to grant amnesty to Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and the rest of LRA. What is the U.S. position on this grant of amnesty or whether the indictment should be enforced?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, we feel that there has to be a priority placed on gaining peace. And to the degree that the peace process has led to many of those who have been abducted being allowed to go into assembly point and has led to some degree of ending the hostilities and the attacks against the civilian population and it's very good. But we also believe that there has to be accountability. Now there are many forms of accountability. The ICC has a process. President Musevini and Foreign Minister Kutesa talk about an Acholi process of dealing with those who have created harm against their community, a local process. I think that we're not making a judgment about that. But we do believe very much that there has to be justice and accountability. There can't be impunity. But we've put a priority on peace. And I see this very much like Charles Taylor. He put a primacy on getting him out of Liberia with ultimate accountability being netted out and so we think that the process should go forward. Now Otti and Kony, according to Foreign Minister Kutesa have not shown up in the assembly points yet. So it's -- you know, the northern Uganda war has not come to an end until those two men are out of the bush.

QUESTION: There was a conference in, I believe it was Gambia a few months ago and it was attended by Iranian President Ahmadi-Nejad, Hugo Chavez and there has been an influx of money reported in the last year basically (inaudible) coming from Iran and Venezuela. They appeared together with Qadhafi in press conferences and, you know, they're trying to gain influence and they are in several places, certainly in Sahara in Africa where Islamist is very strong again. Is this something that concerns you that they're strengthening their influence in these areas?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: No, it doesn't concern me at all, because what they're not doing is building strong relationships based on mutual interests. Now, you can payoff an official here or there. But frankly, I think that the type of relationship that the United States is establishing with Africa, where we've put $15 billion in to trying to address the HIV and AIDS pandemic. It's not ideology. It's not hot rhetoric. It's actually trying to address the real concerns and issues of the people of Africa, where we have taken a leadership role in canceling the debt across Africa, where we have developed a Millennium Challenge Account to actually build the economies of Africa, not pay off a leader or there. But in fact make sure that there's capital available to local entrepreneurs; that they get land title.

I was just talking to Ravalomanana in Madagascar about how the MCA will be used in his country. You know, it's unprecedented. We just signed a Compact with Ghana for $543 million. Our aid levels to sub-Saharan Africa are up to $4 billion. And so, you know, the Iranian President coming and Chavez coming with hot promises and hot rhetoric will not stand the test of time. What we need to do is have sustainable, long-term programs that actually assist the people of Africa to be able to build their own future.

QUESTION: (O. Adaba) Following up on the MCC and its own activities worldwide, specifically in Africa, I've heard it said that it's an exchange for democracy or, you know, how the U.S. is in essence trying to force democracy down the throats of southern African countries. And if you don't (inaudible) then you don't get the funds -- I mean, even if you desperately need it. Do you care to comment on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, first, I don't think anyone has to force democracy down the throats of Africans. (Laughter.) You know, democracy is a value of freedom that everybody aspires to, so I don't that think that's the case at all. In fact, Africa countries have been doing extremely well over the last decade, even before the Millennium Challenge Account came into place, in transforming their countries to democratic regimes. We've seen the results of one-party states: stagnant economies, you know; non-responsive leadership. And so democracy is a good -- it's a universal good that we don't have to impose on any country or any society.

Secondly, the Millennium Challenge Account Compacts are written with the government and key stakeholders in the country and they're primarily focused on stimulating the economy and growing the economy. Obviously you have to have accountability, transparency, the rule of law, in order to make sure that those resources are well used and that comes with, you know, creating democratic space. It comes with creating democratic institutions, so they go hand and hand. But it is not a condition. But clearly, we're not going to give the money to countries that aren't well governed and that is part of the criteria for receiving the Millennium Challenge Account.

Now there are countries that have backtracked on the governance side. I think Gambia might be one of them, which is why they're inviting Iran and Chavez and others in. You know, Jammeh is kind of trying to cover his own, you know, poor performance, frankly by doing so, but it's not conditional. It's that we're trying to put money in places where it will actually have the impact of helping to grow the economy, to stimulate the economies in those countries.

QUESTION: I'm Olaolu Akande. I work for Nigeria's The Guardian. There's very intense dispute going on in Nigeria right now and the name of the United States has been invoked. The President and the Vice President, you know, they have a lot of differences and recently the President invoked a report from the U.S. as the business of the investigation of the Vice President. Are you concerned that the name of the United States is being interjected into what seems to be otherwise a local political disputation between the President and the Vice President?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, I think that the references to one of our own Congressmen, William Jefferson, who has a case against him that includes a charge, an alleged charge of his trying to bribe the Vice President. That's the context and that's really a legal case. And I frankly am not privy to the case, but it's a case against our Congressman. It's not a case against the Vice President of Nigeria. And so politicians will do whatever they will to, you know, try to smear the reputation of their opponents. We know this. But that really is a charge that's based on a charge against our own Congressman, not against Vice President Atiku. I don't know the details of the case and so I don't know what role he has in it or doesn't have in it.

QUESTION: I want to ask a question about the Democratic Republic of the Congo --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Yes.

QUESTION: (M. Lee) -- and with a U.S. -- it has a strange U.S. hook to it that Jan Egeland came to the UN and, among other things, said that many of the abuses in Eastern Congo are committed by the government -- by the government soldiers, the FARDC, that there's a lack of training, that these are essentially decommissioned militia men that are still operating as militias. So the second piece is that the one of the militias that's kidnapped the UN peacekeepers -- Peter Karim is the guy's name -- took them for a month and has now been offered the position of a colonel in the FARDC.

So one, I wonder what the U.S. thinks of that; but, two, our UN sources tell us that there was a time during the kidnapping that the U.S. came to believe that Peter Karim was a Muslim or part of al-Qaida and took a particular interest in the negotiations and then had less. Are you aware of that at all?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: No, I'm not aware of that.

QUESTION: Well, what part of the U.S. Government would it have been, because it's pretty well served in (inaudible?)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, if I'm not aware of it, I wouldn't know. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: I don't know whether it's true or I don't know anything about that. I haven't heard about that, so I don't know anything about that.

QUESTION: Okay. No, no. Just -- but generally, what's your view of -- I guess -- obviously there are the elections. I mean, there are a lot of larger questions on it. Anything you can say about that? But particularly what should be done to stop the fighting in the streets of Kinshasa, to better train them and whether -- again, back to this question of impunity, whether just saying, well, you were using child soldiers yesterday, but tomorrow you're a colonel in the army.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Yeah. No, you know, it's a very important question and it's one that we all face as decision makers and as policymakers. I think that the United States' own approach to this question is that we believe that local and national solutions are best and most sustainable. The Congolese people and their government have to make decisions about how they deal with those who have created or committed, you know, abuses or atrocities in the context of their war. I mean -- and if they decide they're going to provide an amnesty, if they decide that they are going to try to reintegrate and retrain these people into their army, it would be difficult for us to say don't do that. They have to try to find a solution that works for them. And that's been our approach in Africa, in general, which is to try to work with the countries and the leadership to find solutions that work for them.

Now it is the case that in Eastern Congo, but in Congo as a whole, the reintegration process and the retraining process hasn't worked that well. It's a huge country. This is -- you know, significant resources are needed and we all as an international community need to assist them in trying to train capable and professional armed forces. They've never had one. Over 40 years they've never had one. And so this is a huge challenge. The part of this that the United States has taken on has been the Tripartheid Plus process. In fact, we're going to have a meeting tomorrow of the Triphartheid Plus which brought together Uganda, Rwanda, Congo and Burundi so that this issue of borders and cross border attacks and poor neighborly relationship by funding rebels in other countries could come to an end, to create confidence between the countries themselves so that none of these militias groups in Eastern Congo will receive arms or funding from the Ugandans or the Rwandans. They won't take advantage of that. So that's the part of it that we've taken onboard.

QUESTION: I just have one very limited follow up on that, which that one of the -- this hands-off approach, it seems that one of the effects is the MONUC, the UN troops. They work with FARDC, so there was a New York Times op-ed, like right before the election about a village called Kazana that was burned down by FARDC, supposedly with MONUC looking on. So I don't know. I guess what I'm saying is how -- if the ideas allow, you know, that to defer to the Congolese on who's in the FARDC, how closely -- what's MONUC's role, if they work hand in glove or should they sometimes step back? It was an op-ed that caused a lot of -- raised in the UN.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: I just have to say that, you know, the fact that it was reported in the The New York Times doesn't mean it was a fact; doesn't mean it wasn't a fact. (Laughter.) There's a lot of things reported in the newspapers I found on my own recent trip to Khartoum that are not based in fact at all. So I don't know, you know, about the circumstances that you are suggesting. But clearly MONUC has a role to play in trying to secure and stabilize the Ituris (ph) and the Kevoos and we the United States have insisted that MONUC have a robust mandate so that it can carry out that role in protecting the civilian population. And we've over time -- at different times been dissatisfied with the way in which MONUC has carried out its mandate. But you know, this a problem of putting peacekeeping forces into non-permissive environments, without the proper mandate and the proper capability. This is the problem that AMIS forces face right now in Darfur. So we've always been more oriented. President Bush's Administration has been more oriented to trying to have robust mandates to protect innocent civilians and we want MONUC to carry out its role now. If there are rebellious soldiers within FARDC that are attacking civilians, it's MONUC's responsibility to step in.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: We have time for one more and then I think there might be time for a few ones-on-ones.

QUESTION: (O. Akande) Okay, solet me ask you since you are here, if shove comes to push, would the United States support an African country to join the Security Council?

Assistant Secretary JENDAYI Frazer: Well, we've said over and over that we believe that the basis for permanent membership on the Security Council has to do with the qualities that a country brings, not their geography. And those qualities are: Are they well governed; is it a well governed country, democratically well-governed country; what contribution have they made to the United Nations in terms of peacekeeping, in terms of financial contributions; how can -- what do they bring to bear on their global responsibilities as a Permanent Member of the Security Council?

Those are the qualities that we're looking for in a country more so than in their geography. If there are countries that meet those qualifications in Africa they should come forward and it'll be part of the discussion and a debate. We don’t have any reason to preclude African countries, but we are not going to do it on the basis -- our selection will not be on the basis of geography.

Now we've also said that we think that, you know, the Security Council could afford to be more representative.

MS. NISBET: Thank you so much.