U.S. Africa Policy with Focus on Sudan and the Horn of Africa

MS. FRAZER: Thank you very much. I'll just make a couple of comments to talk about our agenda here at the U.N. General Assembly. We've had an opportunity to meet with several heads of state, many foreign ministers. Some of the key issues that have been discussed by Secretary Rice and myself with our counterparts in Africa have been addressing issues in Sudan, particularly focused on working with the U.N. and the AU to get the UNAMID peacekeeping force authorized under Security Council Resolution 1769 deployed; also, preparing for the Tripoli talks in October on the peace process between the Darfur rebel groups and the government of Sudan; and looking at how we can continue to strengthen humanitarian assistance and perhaps move towards recovery activities.

And the United States has been a major contributor on the humanitarian side, the peacekeeping side and the development, with over $4 billion going to Sudan in the last couple of years, including to southern Sudan, where we are very much focused on trying to help the southerners see a peace dividend after 22 years of civil war.

Another issue of great concern at this -- or a discussion at this UNGA has been the issue in Somalia or issues in Somalia, particularly focused on strengthening the African Union peacekeeping force that's currently deployed, AMISOM.

I'm working on getting new troop contributors and discussing with the U.N. to some degree when the U.N. -- what role the U.N. could play in supporting AMISOM and perhaps a follow-on U.N. mission.

And then the final major issue, Africa issue, that's been discussed at -- in our consultations with African leaders and foreign ministers has been the issue of Eastern Congo, and particularly the rising tensions related to General Nkunda, as well as the concerns of the neighboring countries, Rwanda and the Ugandan government, about negative forces that are continuing to exist in Eastern Congo, whether that be -- Ex-FAR/Interahamwe -- or the FDLR, the ADF from Uganda or the Lord's Resistance Army from Uganda, which are all hanging out in the Congo and acting as a destabilizer and a source of suspicion between the three countries. We've had an opportunity, as you heard in President Bush's speech, to also engage leaders on questions of Zimbabwe and how we can help that country return to democracy, as well as being concerned about the rapid failure of the economy because of the policies of President Mugabe and the ZANU PF political party.

Those are just highlights. There were also discussions of course in Eastern -- I'm sorry, in West Africa on the Mano River states and other bilateral issues that we've had a chance to discuss meeting with the President of Comoros. Secretary Rice met with President Kabila. She's met with President Kufuor. She's -- I will be meeting with President Kagame. She's going to meet with Prime Minister Meles and others.

So it's been a broad agenda, but some areas have certainly been focal points for discussions at this UNGA. And I'm quite happy to take any questions that you might have.

Yes.

Q Thank you. Jean Claude Mvodo, ICI

I had the occasion to meet you when you were in Cameroon for the inauguration of the new ambassador.

MS. FRAZER: Yes.

Q So my question is about Cote d'Ivoire. You didn't speak about this country. And since -- (inaudible) -- United States -- (inaudible). So I just want to know, what is your position about what happen in Cote d'Ivoire? And next, it is not a question, but further I would like to have a picture with you after.

MS. FRAZER: Of course. (Laughs.)

On Cote d'Ivoire, it's an oversight. When I referred to the Mano River states, obviously Cote d'Ivoire is not technically one. But in many ways, it's part of the Mono River States issue.

And I did have an opportunity to meet with President Gbagbo while -- during his visit here at UNGA. I discussed how the United States would want to help with the Ouagadougou peace accord. We welcome the Ouagadougou peace accord, put an emphasis on elections as the end state, and the need to move rapidly towards disarmament, demobilization, as well as and especially creating the environment and the institutions for the elections to take place.

The census -- you know, the registration process -- and President Gbagbo assured me that that was moving forward. In fact, he said that the beginning of the registration process would start, I believe, this week.

Q Yesterday.

MS. FRAZER: Yesterday. Exactly. And we welcome that, and certainly emphasize that we believe that the open space that has been provided for opposition to mobilize, to have freedom of the press -- you know, Bedie just held, I think, a meeting of his group, a demonstration or a meeting in Cote d'Ivoire -- is extremely important. And we got assurances from President Gbagbo that that would be allowed.

And we are going to look, of course, at our assistance level to figure out how we can support this process of implementation of the Ouagadougou peace accord. We think it needs to happen rather quickly, so that Cote d'Ivoire can benefit from the same stability that we're seeing in Sierra Leone with its recent elections, of course in Liberia as well.

And so it was an issue of discussion. And we are part of the contact group, and so we have been involved. We haven't taken the lead -- that's been South Africa, France, and now Burkina Faso -- but we have been supportive.

Q Okay.

MS. FRAZER: Yes, ma'am?

Q My name is Constance, and I work for ThisDay newspaper, Nigeria. My question is, during this period, are you or Secretary Rice going to meet with the president of Nigeria, who is here for the U.N. General Assembly meeting? And if there's going to be a meeting, what will be the discussions? Because I know that the U.S. is very much interested in Nigeria, following the elections and following issues of concern, oil and energy and security in the Niger Delta. So I would want a picture of what's going on between these two countries during this period.

MS. FRAZER: Yes, we will -- Secretary Rice will meet with President Yar'Adua. She'll meet with him today. And I would imagine that the discussion will be -- this will be their first meeting, so she will certainly reassure him of the support of the U.S., particularly for his efforts towards electoral reform, because clearly we continue to have concerns about the way in which the last election was conducted. It was not an improvement over the previous one, and so we need to build the institutions, so that the next election can be handled far better, freer and fairer.

So she will talk about electoral reform most certainly.

As you mentioned, we obviously have concerns about peace and stability. Nigeria is a huge country. As many say, if Nigeria sneezes, the rest of the region catches a cold. And so we certainly want to assist the government and the President in his effort to address the insecurity in the Niger Delta, as well as energy security in general.

So those are certainly some of the areas that'll be discussed. Nigeria has always played a major role in Africa. It has a lot of power to project both diplomatically as well as in terms of peacekeepers, and so the situation in Sudan will certainly be discussed, given Nigerian forces as well as the force commander of the AMIS force, which will be the UNAMID force, is a Nigerian. So there will be discussion about Sudan, and there will also certainly be discussion about Somalia as well as, you know, the region.

There's obviously concern about the Sahel, and we would want to consult and get the advice of President Yar'Adua about how we can collectively -- and I mean the U.S., Nigeria, but I mean the U.N., international partners -- work to help with what's taking place in the Sahel area, the ungoverned space there, and how different non-state actors are moving in and are now creating insecurity for the countries of the Sahel.

Yes?

Q My name is Peter Vermaas. I'm from the Netherlands -- (off mike). On Somalia, you mentioned that -- well, you had talked about the role the U.N. could play in Somalia, and I was wondering, what is your position? What role can the U.N. play in Somalia?

MS. FRAZER: Well, the United States' position has been that the U.N. should take over the peacekeeping operations in Somalia. We also believe that the U.N. plays and continues to play a critical role on the humanitarian side. They have a role to play in capacity building of the Transitional Federal Government institutions. Organizations like UNDP can play a very strong role there.

And finally, we welcome the new appointment of the U.N. special rep to the secretary-general, Ould-Abdallah, who we expect to play a leadership role in mobilizing international efforts.

The call for the U.N. to take over the peacekeeping mission was also made by the International Contact Group on Somalia. And so we certainly support that position as the U.S. government and think it reflects what's necessary. It's certainly going to be difficult for UNDPKO, given the work that it's doing in Sudan right now, to mount a new peacekeeping operation in Somalia, but we believe that the planning needs to take place now and the preparation needs to take place for eventually taking over from AMISOM, because it's quite clear that we're talking about -- and it was affirmed in the national reconciliation congress that the Somalis just held -- that the end state for Somalia of the Transitional Federal Government is elections in 2009.

And so just like MONUC helped with the transition to elections in Congo, we need the U.N. to help with the transition to elections in 2009 in Somalia. And so taking over that peacekeeping operation is going to be necessary.

MODERATOR: In 2009?

MS. FRAZER: Not necessarily in 2009, prior to 2009, to facilitate -- so as soon as possible would be the way we would --

MODERATOR: Is it realistic?

MS. FRAZER: UNDPKO would have to answer the question of what would be realistic. You know, UNDPKO is -- you know, we've been talking about them taking over UNAMID or taking over peacekeeping operations -- the AMIS peacekeeping operation in Sudan, at least for the last three, four years.

MODERATOR: Yeah.

MS. FRAZER: And they're still saying that they're planning, and maybe in, you know, next year, March Resolution 1769 says that by no later than December 31st -- and so it's a difficult process, and we understand that. But we need to keep the pressure on the U.N. to move forward with the planning process for taking over the peacekeeping operation in Somalia.

Yeah?

Q Yesterday President Yar'Adua addressed the U.N. General Assembly, and he pointed out that Africans are not happy that the Security Council is still geographically unbalanced. And he pointed out that he would want it to -- that system to be changed. I don't know what is the position of the U.S. government. Would the U.S. government support a situation whereby an African state will become a member of the Security Council?

MS. FRAZER: Well, President Bush in his speech said that he recognizes the need for expansion of the Security Council. He went on to say that he thought that Japan would be a good member.

The reason why he identified Japan is because we have certain criteria. And that criteria that we've laid out for expansion is, new members should have the resources to contribute to international peace and security; they should be democracies, you know, that respect human rights and are well-governed. And so there are certain criteria that we're looking for.

A country like Nigeria could very well be a possible future permanent member of the Security Council, in the sense that Nigeria needs to be democratic, contribute to peacekeeping operations, you know, continue (sic) to international peace and security. Nigeria has done that. The democracy part, they -- there was a hiccup -- (chuckles) -- in the last election. And so strengthening of institutions of democracy as a priority of the new president is going to be key.

But your question wasn't whether Nigeria should be on the Security Council; it was whether an African country should be.

Q An African country, yes.

MS. FRAZER: And we have never -- we affirm that there should be geographic balance but responsible states. And so we have never said anything to suggest that an African country shouldn't be on an expanded Security Council.

We haven't said that it should be, either. What we've said is that there should be enlargement of certain criteria of states. And whether they're African or Asian or European or whatever, it's the criteria that matters, because clearly the case can be made in Africa that there isn't any African member of the Security Council, so there's a strong case to be made, and I think that we are certainly open to that.

But when proposals come from the African continent that says there should be nine new members, it doesn't make it easy, because it's not very feasible that that's going to happen. And all of them have a veto. So the continent itself has to be disciplined about how it would determine candidacy, or countries need to just do it on an individual basis rather than coming up with a proposal that's not workable that then everybody's constrained to push.

Q (Off mike.) If there were an African country that may join the Security Council, which one do you think can --

MS. FRAZER: Oh, I can't -- I'm not going to make that decision. (Laughs, laughter.) I can't -- I wouldn't even speculate; that would be crazy for me to speculate on that.

I mean, frankly, there's two ways to go about this -- more than two ways to go about this, but there are certainly two ways that are obvious to me.

One is the way that has already happened, which is African countries come up with a proposal, they work it out internally; or countries individually, as sovereign members of the international community, put themselves forward and make their case to other, you know, members of the Security Council, because after all, it'll be the Security Council that will probably make the decision. And so I think that either way is feasible, but the United States has established the criteria by which we would make an assessment.

MODERATOR: We have a question from Washington. Go ahead, Washington.

Q Yes.

MS. FRAZER: Yes.

Q Good to see you, Ambassador Frazer. I have -- actually my name is -- (inaudible). I have two questions concerning Darfur, if you don't mind. Abdul Wahid Mohammed Nur says that he will not participate in Tripoli negotiation. What will you -- will be your attitude if he insists not to attend these negotiations, is the first question. My second question, also concerning the Darfur negotiation in Tripoli: On what level USA will be in Tripoli conference? I mean, who is going to lead the USA delegation to the conference?

Thank you.

MS. FRAZER: Thank you very much.

On the first question of Abdul Wahid, it would be disappointing if he does not attend Tripoli. He has clearly stated that he will not. I think that if he does not go and refuses to be part of negotiations, then he becomes a hindrance to the process, to the peace process. And after all, that's what he says he stands for, which is peace in Darfur.

And so certainly the United States is urging him to go, everyone is urging him to go to Tripoli. We will continue to try to be in dialogue with him, discussions, and to continue to urge him. If he doesn't go, eventually he will completely marginalize himself to the peace process. And that's certainly a concern of mine because I think that he does have much to offer to Sudan, and certainly to Darfur, and so it will be better for him to come to the table and be part of the process.

I think that his argument is he wants to be the recognized leader. But you don't need people to recognize you; you just need to be a leader. That would be what I would say to Abdul Wahid, just be a leader. And if you're a leader, you will be recognized as such. But staying in the margins is not leadership.

On the issue of Tripoli and who will represent the U.S., certainly our special envoy, Andrew Natsios, will be going to Tripoli at the end of the month, and we expect him to go to Tripoli at the end of the month. But the structure of the negotiations haven't yet been finalized. And so he will certainly go and lead our delegation. Who will stay, depending on how long, we are still working out with the AU and the U.N. in terms of how they would like to structure it. But we expect if international observers are welcomed, and I think that they will be, that the special envoy, Natsios, will go.

Okay. Another question from Washington?

MODERATOR: Go ahead, Washington.

Q (Name and affiliation off mike.) I have two questions. The first one is about Tuareg rebel activities that are going on in Mali and Niger, that I would like to know if the United States are involved at all, planning to be involved in solving the problem. The second question is about Cote d'Ivoire. President Gbagbo said he wanted the weapon embargo to be lifted or partially lifted. And I would like to know if you can comment on that.

MS. FRAZER: Yes. Thank you. In my opening statement I referred to the problem of ungoverned space in the Sahel region, and I was talking about Niger, northern Mali. Certainly the United States isn't prepared to be involved in a fight against the Tuareg. We believe that instead, there needs to be dialogue, it just needs to be managed. And we've supported the government of Mali trying to end any rebellion through dialogue, through a political process.

That said, we need to in general -- that's why I said we're going to seek the advice of President Yar'Adua and others who we will consult with to say, how can we collectively address this long-term issue? Because it's not just the Tuareg; it's many others who were moving in and out of that space.

And so we're in a process right now of consulting. We certainly are consulting with the affected government. We do believe that trying to extend the arm of the state -- state authorities, state services, state resources -- into those other ungoverned spaces is a key to that, to the long-term resolution of the problem of the crisis. But that's also something that's going to have to take place over the longer term.

The second question was -- just remind me quickly?

Q (Off mike.)

Q Yes. It was about President Gbagbo --

MS. FRAZER: Yes. Yes. President Gbagbo, when I met with him, did raise this issue. And certainly as part of the process of disarmament and reintegration and professionalization of the security forces, police and military, there needs to be training and professional training. What we would look at is, in the context of Security Council discussions, whether there's some room for a one-time or a minimal exception for training purposes. We haven't -- the U.S. government hasn't taken a decision about that, but we understand his request. And on the basis of possibly how to reintegrate these forces and professionalize them, that may be necessary. So we're open to a conversation without having yet made a decision.

Yes. Questions here? Yes.

Q I'd like to have a question about what -- (off mike) -- now about AGOA -- (off mike) -- the process is going on. Is it a good idea or do you have to change something after the beginning of this process?

MS. FRAZER: AGOA, the Africa Growth and --

Q Yeah.

MS. FRAZER: Well, it's been going on, and we think it's good. We think that it's helped to increase trade. Right now our trade relationship with Subsaharan Africa is I believe about 70-some billion dollars, almost $80 billion, and approximately 44 billion (dollars) of that is under AGOA. It's AGOA-related. And that's -- the increase has been significant over the years of AGOA, since its implementation.

It allows for 6,000 products -- 6,000 tariff lines to come in duty-free in the United States, and so this is a tremendous comparative advantage for African countries to be able to import or export to the United States, and so it's been good.

Now, the trade balance between the U.S. and Sub-Saharan Africa is also positive to Africa. That $70-or-so billion: We are 30 billion and Africa is about 40 billion. Specifically we're 29 billion. And so Africa has a trade advantage to the United States because of AGOA. And so we've done that: We've opened our markets to give an advantage.

The issue is, many -- now, some other countries are saying that they want to have AGOA worldwide. Like, everyone wants that duty-free access to the United States market. Well, if we give everyone that access, Africa no longer has a comparative advantage.

And so I've heard some people flip it. Rosa Whitaker, who was one of the first founders of the AGOA legislation -- she was on the staff of the committee that worked on it and helped write the legislation -- has said, why don't all countries give duty-free access to African products. Instead of all countries getting duty-free access to the U.S. market, every other country should extend the same benefit that the United States is doing to Africa if, in fact, we are serious about trade-based economic growth and development, and private-sector-led economic growth and development, which is the best way.

It's the most sustainable way. It's far better in the long term than aid. And it certainly is far better than, you know, loan-based growth. You need, to trade, comparative advantage, and so we think the AGOA has been positive.

What AGOA hasn't done sufficiently is stimulate investment into African economies, because that's the other side of the picture, is to actually stimulate investment. And I personally think that that's a function of perception: perception of risk, the fact that, you know, Somalia and Sudan are on the news every night. But what's going on in Ghana or in Tanzania or, you know, in all of these countries which have high growth -- no one sort of follows growth. What they follow is disaster.

And so that perception of crises in Africa, I think, scares away investment. And AGOA hasn't sufficiently stimulated the investment side. I -- that's my own view, but that's not the fault of AGOA. I think it's just, AGOA hasn't been able to overcome, like many other things have not been able to overcome, the perception of disaster and risk that's, you know, in Africa. And I think again that that perception frankly comes from the media.

That's my own view. The media doesn't tell good news stories. The media tells disaster stories.

Q American media -- (off mike) -- because they are the one who give information about Africa.

MS. FRAZER: Well, it's not just American media. I mean, I for one watch BBC quite a lot. (Laughter.) I happen to believe the BBC, you know, covers Africa a lot, all right?

So it's just not American media, but CNN definitely is also -- certainly I've said this many times, you know? CNN covers disasters. Where are the good stories?

Q I would like to know -- (inaudible) -- to help Africa, to have good image in Africa. Because this problem of what media show to American people is a critical situation. They don't -- rarely show what's going on in the that side of the situation. Sometime, they spread events in Africa. Let's say in Cameroon, there is an event there meant to promote -- where many country come to promote -- (inaudible). And I didn't see this event in American media. The only way -- (inaudible) -- disaster or something like this. What do you do to --

MS. FRAZER: Well, the U.S. government doesn't control American media. So we have a free press, an independent free press, and we can't tell them what their storylines are going to be. What we try to do as the U.S. government is that you will notice that President Bush's speech to the U.N. General Assembly was very positive about Africa.

Q Yes.

MS. FRAZER: First Lady Laura Bush held an Education and Literarcy event showing a very positive image about Africa. Secretary Rice's speech: very positive, she tells the good stories that are going on there.

And so as the U.S. government, all we can do is put out the positive information. But our media is free. It's a free press, so they can -- we can't tell them what to do. (Laughs.) We can complain about what they do but we can't tell them what to do.

Q Can I ask you one other question on Somalia?

MS. FRAZER: Yes.

Q Because the Ethiopians there -- they're still around in Somalia.

What's your position? What's your view? What should the Ethiopians do in the coming months? Because I think the situation in Somalia pretty much depends on the Ethiopian presence there.

MS. FRAZER: Well, I think that that's right. The Ethiopians -- what we've told them is that they should phase out as AMISOM phases in. And that's why we're putting a big emphasis on trying to get the AMISOM forces in, because we think it is important for the Ethiopians to leave.

We are also encouraging them to be careful in terms of indiscriminate attacks or indiscriminate firing into civilian crowds. And I say that because the insurgents and the terrorists are hiding behind women and children and civilians, using them as human shields. They're throwing grenades at the transitional federal government forces and the Ethiopians, and then when they fire back, they're firing into civilian crowds. And so we've been -- you know, of course urging them to try to use maximum restraint.

But they're in a very difficult situation. And so, many would try to blame the Ethiopians and the transitional federal government forces. We, instead, try to counsel and advise them. But the blame goes to those who are throwing the grenades, to those who are exploding IEDs, to those who are creating the environment of insecurity that they are then reacting to.

And so the ideal scenario is that the Ethiopians can withdraw quickly by the African forces getting in, quickly, and then the U.N. taking over, quickly. (Laughs.)

Q (Off mike.) But the Ethiopians, they do have, well, an interest in the south. They have this region, which is -- well, the Ethiopians think that -- it's called --

MS. FRAZER: Ogaden.

Q Yeah, Ogaden region. What's your view on that?

MS. FRAZER: Well, there, again, is a disaster in the sense of -- and I mean a disaster in that the environment is difficult in the Ogaden. And I think people don't recognize that, that you have drought and you have floods, and you go back and forth between drought and floods.

And the -- so that the trade relationship, the way in which people got their food in the Ogaden is by selling their goats to the people in Somalia. The conflict in Somalia has decreased the amount of food that can be traded in. Eighty percent of the food that goes into the Ogaden comes through commercial trade, not the humanitarian assistance. And so when that's cut off, and cut off for multiple reasons, then we're facing a potential disaster, humanitarian disaster in the Ogaden.

What are the reasons for that? One is the environment, like I said, the climate's just bad. Secondly, the fighting in Somalia has reduced the amount of food that comes through commercial traffic. Third, the insurgency in the Ogaden has intensified, particularly after the killing of the Chinese oil workers and Ethiopians.

The government has launched a counterinsurgency campaign, military operations, created between the ONLF and the government greater insecurity in the region. And so, obviously, in that environment humanitarian workers pull out.

The ONLF has mined the roads, the secondary roads, so it's very difficult for humanitarian convoys to get the food to the rural areas. It's getting to the major cities or the major areas in the Ogaden, but to the rural areas it's much more difficult.

At least three humanitarian trucks have blown up in the last month. So people are again pulling back. And then the government is stopping those commercial trucks that come from Somalia, just stopping them at the border, and they're examining them because they believe that they're bringing contraband, they're bringing weapons in to the ONLF. And so you have that slowing down the delivery of food. And they're insisting on taking those convoys in with -- I'm sorry -- taking those food trucks in with military convoys. And so all of that creates an environment for a humanitarian disaster.

Q (Off mike) -- in this security operation?

MS. FRAZER: No.

Q No? Not at all?

MS. FRAZER: No. No, no, no. No, this is the problem. I mean, honestly, there's a problem in Africa -- there's a structural problem in Africa that many people don't want to acknowledge. And that structural problem is that you have weak state structures, unable to provide security throughout their territory. You have insurgencies that do not have legitimacy. They may have some popularity. But sovereign governments are legitimate insurgency doesn't have the legitimacy. But they may have some popularity. They may have some legitimate grievances. And so when a government then conducts counterinsurgency operations against those groups, the civilians are the ones who are caught in the middle between the insurgents and the government. The insurgents will attack anybody that's seen as pro-government or sympathetic to the government. The government will harass or attack people who are seen as pro-insurgent. And this is across all of Africa. It's too easy to have insurgency because of lack of state capacity, in many ways.

The U.S. government recognizes the legitimacy of government to put down their insurgencies, but we always urge them to respect human rights, to hold accountable anyone who's, you know, involved in atrocities.

Now -- but this is the problem of the Sahel. This is the problem of the Tuareg. We don't want to get in the middle of a government dealing with its own citizens, and so we -- you know, in many ways we have to stand back. But then when those insurgents in the current environment start linking up with international terrorist organizations, then it's a more complex situation.

And so we are not -- no -- involved in any operations in the Ogaden against ONLF, but the ONLF are getting their assistance from the al-Shabab and other groups, which are threatening our people as well. And so it's a more complex situation.

Q Will it mean you shouldn't be involved?

MS. FRAZER: Well, it means that we could get dragged into it, but we are resisting being dragged into it -- (laughs) -- is what it means, you know. I mean, and we can get dragged into it not by a government trying to drag us in but because of our own interests.

Q I have a question, please.

MODERATOR: We have time for one more. Anyone up here in New York?

Okay. You want to take one last question from Washington?

Q Oh, thank you. Are you hearing me?

MS. FRAZER: I'm hearing you fine.

Q Good. Thank you.

Okay. There are some reports -- just two questions, if you don't mind. Okay. There some reports that you are planning to visit Sudan. My question: When will be that? And are you going to discuss with the Sudanese in Khartoum the sanctions against Sudan? This is the first question.

The second question is, I think you are going to, on your schedule, a meeting with a delegation from southern Sudan next week, maybe on Monday. My question also: Are you going to discuss with them the option of separation according to the CPA, since there will be a referendum and the south then will vote between separation or unity in Sudan? Thank you.

MS. FRAZER: Thank you.

I don't have on my schedule plans to visit Sudan any time soon. My next trip will probably be to Southern Africa.

That said, the deputy secretary on Friday met with Foreign Minister Lam Akol and had dinner with him, in which we did discuss issues of sanctions.

He also hosted the State minister, Al-Samani, recently in Washington, D.C., in which we discussed our bilateral relationship, and the issue of sanctions came up as well. And so we have ongoing conversations with the government of Sudan on all of the issues, including sanctions, but I don't have any intention -- or there's no plan for me to go to Sudan any time soon.

On the issue of the government of Sudan delegation, they are in Washington now. I'm -- you know my schedule better than I do. (Laughter.)

(Chuckles.) Perhaps I'm meeting them on Monday. (Laughter.) You must know. (Chuckles.) But yes, I will meet with them. And if they raise the issue of separation, they will hear the same answer that they've always heard from the U.S. government, which is that we support unity. We support John Garang's vision of a unified, democratic Sudan, and we will continue to work with them to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to the end of achieving that unity.

And that's why in my statement I said that the United States has provided about $4 billion in assistance to -- for peacekeeping, for humanitarian assistance and for development, and that we want to see the peace dividend of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement realized in southern Sudan, so that people will opt for unity.

And so we strongly support unity. We understand that there are real challenges, not the least of which the government of Sudan has marginalized SPLA, SPLM ministers who are in the north -- that's not helpful -- just as the government of Sudan has marginalized Menni Minnawi from Darfur, making it less attractive for the rebels to agree to peace. But they must agree to peace and they must do it through dialogue, not through the use of arms.

Q But if the south votes with the separation, what would be the attitude of Washington in this case?

MS. FRAZER: Well, the south has the right to separate. That was the -- that's in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. They will go to a referendum, and they will have to make a decision about whether they want to stay part of Sudan or separate. That is their right, negotiated right.

We are urging them not to take that -- not to move towards that direction and instead to work towards unity, because we think Sudan is stronger as a unified Sudan and that the opportunity for democratization will come from all of the marginal areas -- the east, the west, the south -- being part of a unified -- and the north -- being part of a unified Sudan where it's democratic.

You know, Sudan, if it separates, may never be democratic. And so we are -- we want a democratic, stable Sudan that is unified, and we think that the best way to achieve the first two is by making sure that unity is the preferred option of the southerners.

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you.

MS. FRAZER: Thank you.

END.