Current Developments in Sudan

MR. TEAL: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Christopher Teal with the Foreign Press Center. It's our pleasure to have you here today, to have Cameron Hume with us.

Although his youthful appearance might indicate otherwise, he actually has more than 30 years of experience as a foreign service officer, and for the past year he's been our chargé d'affaires in Sudan. He's here to talk a little bit about events that are ongoing there on the ground in Sudan. He's going to make a brief opening statement and then he's going to be available to take some of your questions, so without further ado.

AMBASSADOR HUME: Thank you very much. I'll be quite brief. Sudan obviously gets a lot of attention in U.S. foreign policy for a lot of good reasons. One is -- and I think the primary interest is our deep concern in humanitarian situations, which is acute most places in the country. Obviously, it gets more attention in Darfur than elsewhere right now, but certainly, in the south and in other areas, there are a lot of humanitarian issues. There are over 6 million internally displaced persons in Sudan, more than three times the number in any other country.

Second, I think there's the longstanding effort on the part of the United States, particularly the initiative launched by the Bush Administration five and a half years ago, with the appointment of Jack Danforth as a special envoy to try to end the war between the north and the south. There's no question that that's a huge major effort and it's one that -- in which I think there's been a lot of success and there are also issues, not surprisingly, that continue to need to be dealt with.

The third area is trying to get a peace for Darfur and I think, frankly, that is -- if one could make a comparison, maybe even a more difficult challenge, in part, because one is dealing not only with a conflict where there are two sides to the argument, as there were, in a way, with the north and the south, but one is dealing with an enormous amount of disorder at the same time. And that, of course, makes it more difficult to address for dialogue.

So those are the simple comments that I'd just like to make at the beginning and then I'll be glad to -- I think this was billed as a roundtable. I don't see a roundtable in here, but we can imagine. So with that, I'll just be glad to take your questions.

MR. TEAL: Thanks very much. As we identify you, if you could state your name and your news organization and wait for the microphone as well before the question.

QUESTION: Hi, George Gedda of AP. Could you bring us up to date on the phased agreement that President Bashir agreed to in late December, whether phase one is totally implemented and if not, why not? And what are the prospects for phase two? And if you have any thoughts, phase three as well.

AMBASSADOR HUME: Okay. I'll be glad to answer that question. First, let me just define what the three are. The first one is the light support package. This is the UN support for the African Union Peacekeepers. The light support package is 185 individuals, about half military and half civilian. This was agreed to in December with -- as Andrew Natsios had requested that they be allowed to deploy wearing their UN helmets or insignias.

I believe that to date, approximately half of that number has deployed and I think substantially, they have come from the UN mission in the south. So on that group, the 185, the UN has a considerable way to go still in recruiting and deploying the other half. The -- and there are mostly -- that group, as you might imagine, there are people who would be doing essentially staff functions at headquarters and advising.

The second group, which would be -- is called the heavy support package, would be between two and three thousand personnel. Well, we haven't finished the light package, so we're not into the second package yet and I think for that, Darfur, I'd mention to you, is logistically very difficult. There is -- it's the place in Africa furthest from the sea. There is a lack of transportation. So if you're going to put 3,000 people there, you have to also drill wells to get water for 3,000 people in the locations, you needed beds, food, whatever. That optimistically would take until the end of June. I'm unaware that they've recruited the two to three thousand people. That's a question I think they'd know better in New York, so that has a way to go.

For the agreement with the Sudanese Government, I think I would state that as agreed to, but not all the details have been approved. So that package, I believe, was reported -- was handed over to the Sudanese about a week ago. I happen not to know what they've said in the last week because I've been traveling.

The third phase would be -- you had the first phase at 200, the second phase at 2000, the third phase is 20,000. And that would presumably start after July. Obviously, that is still on the horizon as far as someone who lives in Khartoum.

MR. TEAL: Very good. Additional questions here in Washington? We have one more question coming up.

QUESTION: Marcel Calfat with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio-Canada. What is the level of cooperation from -- that the U.S. senses it's getting from the Sudan Government -- Sudanese Government and is it enough?

AMBASSADOR HUME: You know, it depends -- excuse me, it depends, I think, on the issue. There are some areas where I think the cooperation is substantial. A lot of our economic and humanitarian assistance programs, which are quite large -- in fact, we get -- I wouldn't say perfect, but we get substantial cooperation. I think there are other issues in which, frankly, we get less cooperation than is legally required. And I would point out that, for example, the Sudanese Government has delayed clearance of building supplies for us to put up a new chancery and this is causing enormous problems.

So there's a gamut and I think the challenge is to try and move that level of cooperation in all areas more towards the positive, but it's not -- you know, there is a vital working relationship. It's the country where we -- after Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States Government spends the most money on a collection of peacekeeping, economic development, and humanitarian relief concerns. So it's a large and vibrant relationship, but not with perfect cooperation.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TEAL: Very good. I think we're going to go to New York now for questions, please.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'm Abdullahi Shuaibu with the Panapress News Agency. My question has to do with the persistent denial by the president of Sudan. He keeps saying the number of casualties is not up to that figure and do you think attention should be (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR HUME: As I understand it, your question relates to the number of mortality figures for Darfur. And I'd just say I'm not an expert on that. I tend to read the same articles that you do and the press or public statements. And I would note only that we're now at a point where people tend to talk in hundreds of thousands, so the most common figures I see are -- some newspapers, it's 400,000 and others, it's 200,000. I really don't know.

I would just say, as I go to Darfur frequently, it is a very harsh environment and I think in that kind of -- with people very sparsely populated, understandably, it's a difficult place to survive. I don't know if it's 200,000 or 400,000. I think either way, it's two or four hundred thousand people too many who have died.

MR. TEAL: Is there a follow-up question?

QUESTION: Yeah, I'd like to -- Marcel Calfat again from the CBC. The role of China -- the President was there just recently, wiped off a lot of debt. What do you see as China's role in the situation in Sudan?

AMBASSADOR HUME: Well, I think if we look back over the last 15 years, Sudan has repositioned its trading relations and China is now the largest investor and the largest trader with Sudan. So in that regard, it's a pretty strong relationship. I read one report recently that of the 15 largest foreign investments in Sudan, 13 are Chinese. So it's a relationship of huge strategic importance.

The second thing I'd say is I think, as you all know, and I'm not trying to speak for the Chinese, but they have -- their foreign policy has certain characteristics. And those characteristics they apply in Sudan, elsewhere in Africa, as they do elsewhere in the world. And up to this point, they have paid less attention to, let's say, the internal governance of some of their trading partners than might be the case with Canada or the United States or other countries.

I think in this trip, reading the press, I think I'd say that the Chinese are acknowledging or their behavior is acknowledging also some concern for the internal conflicts in Sudan, both in Darfur and in the south, and I think that that's a welcome development. But frankly, I think I'm only -- I'm a distant observer of that in a way. I think it's up to the Chinese and the Sudanese to describe their own relationship.

MR. TEAL: Do we have a question back here?

QUESTION: Jim Fisher-Thompson, State Department USINFO. You said you've been traveling. Could you describe some of those travels and whom you met with and what you discussed?

AMBASSADOR HUME: This is going to be a disappointment. I met with my daughters in New York and Charlottesville. (Laughter.) Not a disappointment to me, you understand.

MR. TEAL: Okay, I think we have a follow-up question in New York.

QUESTION: Yes, I would like to ask from the News Agency of Nigeria, Abdullahi. Do you think sanctions should be the next option to the Sudanese delaying those phased approaches by the international community?

AMBASSADOR HUME: Right. Well, as an American diplomat, I'm in a fairly unique position since the United States has truly extensive sanctions against Sudan, starting from the late 1980s when the current government came into power, or the antecedents of the current government came into power through coup d'etat. We have practically no trade and practically no investment in Sudan, so it's no surprise that as an American diplomat I would be quite glad to see other countries adopt our policies as their own.

Do I think that it's likely that there'll be -- that other countries will? I think that depends. There have been some suggestions in that direction, but I think the imposition of, let's say, global sanctions by the UN would be very gradual at best.

MR. TEAL: George.

QUESTION: George Gedda again. In recent months the Administration has sought to enlist support of Arab countries with respect to pressure on Sudan to do more to provide humanitarian relief and protect the people of Darfur. Could you characterize the response of Arab countries in this regard?

AMBASSADOR HUME: I think there's been an increased level of expressed interest. I don't know that I would characterize it as actual pressure. And I think if you go back, if you think of what I had said about the UN and the deployment of the -- the light package, the planned deployment, the heavy package and the envisaged phase three, I think that in many ways the best pressure that Arab countries could put on the situation would be to offer their troops and employees, civilian staff, so that the UN deployments could move ahead as rapidly as possible. That would be pressure on the situation, if not necessarily directly pressure on the Sudanese Government. I think that's pressure that would move a potential solution forward.

MR. TEAL: Do you have additional questions?

QUESTION: Thank you. Endale from Ethiopian TV. I have just two questions. One of them is regarding the peacekeepers deployment on Sudan. I know the neighboring country, Somalia, is also waiting for the peacekeepers to come in, and as you know, a few African countries pledged but the United Nation is also trying to possibly maybe also to deploy peacekeepers. Do you think that will affect phase two and perhaps phase three? That's my first question.

AMBASSADOR HUME: Yes, there's a numbers game out there and the key number is how many troops could African countries deploy in sustainable peacekeeping operations at any time. I believe that in the U.S. Government we operate off the figure of about 10,000. In order to deploy a battalion, you really need two other battalions in reserve, so that would mean about 30,000 troops who were trained and capable of doing peacekeeping. I, frankly, think that's really an outer limit, but if you accepted the 10,000 number and then you look at what's required or projected for Somalia or what's projected for Darfur, I think you'll see you're talking about more than 10,000 troops, so you're going to be banging up against some kind of a practical limitation.

We're not there yet. We're not banging up against it yet. There are about 5,000 African troops in Darfur. The peacekeeping force is 7,000 but only 5,000 of them are soldiers. So I would say if everything went ahead in both places, sometime in the next six months we'd be at the limit of what could be deployed without going outside Africa, and then you'd have a real difficulty.

QUESTION: My second question is related to journalist is detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison - a Sudanese journalist. Do you have any comments on that or have you heard on this situation?

AMBASSADOR HUME: I'm not sure I followed who you're talking about. You're talking about the Al Jazeera journalist in Guantanamo; is that what you're asking?

QUESTION: A Sudanese citizen, yes.

AMBASSADOR HUME: Pardon?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

AMBASSADOR HUME: Yeah. No, all I know is that he -- at this point is that he is, in fact, detained at Guantanamo and, in fact, that at this point he is not scheduled for release. That's all that I'm aware of.

MR. TEAL: Maybe Anne?

QUESTION: Anne Toulouse with Radio France International. We keep hearing that there is a Plan B for Darfur. Could you tell us what this Plan B is and when it will be implemented, if ever?

AMBASSADOR HUME: I think you're asking the wrong person. I spend all my time trying to do Plan A. No, I think that Plan B would represent a judgment that we're not able to get adequate cooperation to move ahead to get in there UN peacekeepers to stabilize the situation in Darfur to guarantee the distribution of humanitarian supplies. And as I said, my own focus is trying to be sure that we actually do get the peacekeepers in and we are able to continue to get the humanitarian supplies out. So I think it's more of a Washington question than a field-based question what ingredients you'd put into Plan B.

QUESTION: Yeah, Fisher-Thompson again. A two-part question. How is the post out there, your office, interacting with the Bashir government? Are relations smooth? Are you, you know, interacting on a regular basis?

And secondly, could you give an assessment of the North-South Peace Agreement, the CPA that's come under some question? Is the Southern Government's component in that dynamic in Khartoum, is that working well and smoothly?

AMBASSADOR HUME: I have regular meetings with Sudanese officials. Our discussions are certainly correct and businesslike. I can't tell you that we agree on everything, but certainly we have access and we attempt to do the business that's at hand.

For the question of the North-South peace and the role of the representatives of the SPLM in the central government, I think on the North-South peace this was a war that went on for 25 or 50 years, depending on how you're counting. This is a war that cost about 100,000 people a year. But unlike Darfur, the world didn't care so much.

At the end of that generation-long war, they have a very complicated peace agreement. The institutional parts of it have largely been implemented on schedule; that is, forming a government in the South, forming a national government in Khartoum that brings in the two parties. And a lot of the things in the agreement have been implemented, if not perfectly, certainly better than one might have anticipated when the agreement was signed: withdrawal of Northern forces from most places in the South; I think they're obliged at this point to be withdrawn to 75 percent and they're withdrawn at about 72 percent but the ones remaining are largely concentrated along the border area where tensions are higher.

There's questions -- the South is getting oil revenues for the first time, over a billion dollars a year. There's a question: Are they getting all the revenues they're supposed to get? Well, probably not because they're not getting their share of the revenues from the areas where the border hasn't been determined.

So I would say that institutionally it's largely been implemented, but some of the more dynamic elements -- drawing the border, finding out the exact revenue distribution, resolving the most difficult areas where there's been military confrontation, I'd be concerned. In other words, there I think we're not doing it as quickly as would be helpful.

For the Southerners in the Northern government, the government in Khartoum does not have the governing habits of coalition governments like in, I don't know, Germany or Italy. They came in in a military coup and that's what they're used to. So on the one hand, I think the Southerners in the government are treated with full respect; on the other hand, I think there are also questions about whether or not they have the full measure of influence that their jobs might entitle them to. But that's -- I think it's understandable and it takes time to change a political culture. So I think a lot positive has happened, but I think it would be fair to say if you're an advocate of that peace agreement, it would be good to kick it up a notch to get that momentum back.