Press Conference on Sudan

In Khartoum we met with the United Nations, the NGOs, and with senior government officials.

We welcome the Sudanese Government’s acceptance of the hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force, but we must now have action by the GOS to facilitate and speed up the implementation process. We want to see the Government of Sudan and its allies in the Security Council support a robust resolution to begin to implement this agreement by October 1, 2007.

Since my last visit here, the Government of Sudan has made significant progress in improving the humanitarian operating framework for the NGOs, the UN aid agencies, and the ICRC in Darfur, under the March 26, 2007 Humanitarian Access Communiqué. We appreciate this improvement, but criminal violence against the humanitarian organizations in Darfur has increased and it is restricting humanitarian access. It needs to be addressed by the Government of Sudan which is in charge of preserving law and order to create a real improvement in security on the ground in Darfur.

The problem of the militias in the South and other armed groups in the South has been substantially dealt with and this is one clear indicator of some progress in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement implementation. A framework has been put in place by the United Nations aid agencies for the implementation of the elections, but we still must have a new election law and the government of Sudan must engage on the issue in order for us to prepare for the elections. The government has yet to put the $38 million in one-time, forward, in order to implement the census which is required for the elections to take place. So while some progress has been made in these areas, much of it is being done by the donor community. We urge the government to match that donor concern and interest and work. The United States is contributing $70 million in the next fiscal year toward elections and we expect the Sudanese government to contribute their fair share as well. There has been an Executive Committee or Commission set up by the NCP and the SPLM to address CPA implementation issues. I understand they have met and they have had many successes in dealing with serious issues.

We still have concerns though on the situation in Sudan.

After a halt in the bombing between the beginning of February and the end of April 2007, the Sudanese Government has resumed bombing in Darfur. This should end and the ceasefire that was agreed to some time ago should be respected. We urge the Sudanese government to end all bombing in Darfur immediately.

We are hearing troubling reports of Arab tribes, from neighboring countries, that are not citizens of Sudan, being settled on Fur land in West Darfur and other sensitive parts of Sudan, particularly the Nuba Mountains. This is very disturbing. This is a very provocative action that concerns us all and will complicate any future political process of reconciliation in Sudan, particularly in Darfur, and I might add, in Kordofan as well. When a settlement is reached and people go back to their homes and they find out someone is living on their land and farming it, this will simply create a new war.

There has been a proliferation of rebel groups. Some of them are descending into warlordism and criminality. This is not a good trend in Darfur, which is all the more reason why we need to accelerate the political process for a peace agreement. Some rebel leaders are cynically obstructing the peace process. The United States Government is very disturbed by this. It needs to end now. All the rebel leaders need to work constructively along with the Sudanese government to facilitating, not obstructing, the peace process.

There has been a dangerous proliferation in the international community of mediation efforts, very well intentioned by many people, by neighboring countries, by institutions, by organizations outside the AU/UN structure and lead, and this has contributed to “forum shopping” by many rebel groups. We strongly support the UN/AU in their efforts and urge everyone to follow their lead and integrate fully all of their efforts inside the system the United Nations and the AU have established to begin this political process.

We are concerned about the continuing issue of Abyei. As a witness to the CPA, the United States government urges both sides to continue to work together to find an equitable solution as soon as possible. The longer Abyei is left unresolved the more risk there is to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The closer we get to the elections of 2009 where Abyei is not dealt with, you risk the CPA. We believe that the ABC report provides the best framework for such an agreement for the sake of all the people of Abyei – the Ngok Dinka and other residents of the area. But certainly if there is an agreement that both sides reach that accommodates their mutual interests we would certainly support that.

And while there has been a redeployment of 66% of Sudanese Armed Forces units from the South, we strongly urge that this redeployment be continued in order to comply with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement benchmarks in order to strengthen the confidence in the full compliance of the CPA. The presence of northern troops right now past the two-year deadline in the oil area is disturbing.

Finally, I want to emphasize that an improvement in the U.S. Government’s relationship with the Sudanese Government is dependent on the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the just resolution of the Darfur crisis.

Are there any questions?

Yes, sir.

Mohamed Osman (Sudan News Agency): About U.S.-Sudan relations, the U.S. is exerting a lot of pressure on Sudan and this is coming with little help. [Inaudible] There are so many promises about material assistance, but when it comes to implementation, there is nothing being done.

Natsios: That’s just not true. That’s complete nonsense. The fact of the matter is, the United States is the largest donor to Sudan. The largest aid program in Africa is in Sudan, of the U.S. Government. We spend just in Darfur, in the last four years, $2 billion. That’s an enormous amount of money. I might add, it is the Sudanese government that should be feeding its own people in Darfur, not the United States government. I urge the Sudanese government to match what we have contributed to the people of Darfur with their own oil money. I might add that the United States government is contributing to road construction in the South, to school construction, to health clinics, to bridges, to boreholes and water projects, to governance. I urge the Sudanese government to do the same thing. We made commitments, for example, on the elections. I urge the Sudanese government to commit to implement the elections by showing a good faith effort in appropriating money to execute the agreements in the CPA that called for elections. I also urge them once again to contribute the $38 million they promised in one tranche to the census. It was the United States that brought in technical experts to implement the census and provided the initial funding for the pilot project. So I think we have been generous. We have fulfilled all our commitments. In fact, we have gone beyond those commitments. All of the pledges made by the United States on the reconstruction of Southern Sudan and Darfur have been, in fact, carried out.

Mohamed Osman (SUNA): What about the other donors?

Natsios: I can’t speak for other donors, I have no control over them. All we have control over is what the United States government does.

Amber Henshaw (BBC): Can you give us an idea about the resumption of bombing what kind of scale we are talking about, any idea of areas, death toll? The other thing I am interested in is the proliferation of groups in Darfur, you said it is turning into warlordism. It does not bode well if you are trying to get to peace talks. How do you manage with these kinds of factions?

Natsios: I have worked in about 14 different post-conflict reconstruction, civil war, circumstances around the world the last 18 years. The most difficult issue is to deal with the security situation related to armed groups which are not disciplined and don’t have hierarchies. This is the great challenge in all of these conflicts. Even after agreements we still have unrest. We had it in Liberia, we had it in Angola, we had it in Sierra Leone, we have it in the Congo now, we have had it in Haiti. I might go through a list of countries with serious problems like this. So it’s not unusual for this to happen. The difference is, this is a wealthy country. There are resources here that can deal with some of these issues. The reason these groups get formed usually is because the economy has collapsed and there is no source of jobs for people. Young men tend to join these armed groups. An investment of resources in Darfur by the central government in terms of development would produce more jobs and I think a resolution of the crisis. It would set the stage for people to resettle to their villages, so people could grow food again and bring their cattle back, and their animal herds back. That would facilitate the reconstruction of the economy. I would say in terms of the actual process you have to distinguish between the political groups that have a legitimate political agenda from those that have simply become criminal gangs, looting trucks and food from aid agencies, and looting villages. Looters and criminals should not be engaged in the political process. But there has to be a process. I spent the evening with Jan Eliasson and [inaudible] last night at dinner to talk through the steps needed to accelerate the political process and to try to take into account the interests of civil society. When Alberto and I went to the displaced camps, people were very adamant that they needed to be represented in these peace talks, and many of them told us that the rebel movements did not represent their political views, which I thought that is a change from when I went to the camps in previous years. I might also add, there appears to be a division between the people in the camps and the common people of Darfur who want security, they want a disarming of the Janjaweed, the defense force, and all of the rebel militias. They made that very clear as their first priority. Second, they want their land back. And third, they want reconstruction, they want compensation. Those are their priorities. It was interesting that the rebel leaders, and some of the Darfur Forum and some political leaders talked more about a vice president from Darfur and reuniting the province and devolution of power, what I would say are the larger, abstract political issues. There seems to be a division between the people in Darfur and some of the leaders. It’s not that one group or the other are right or wrong, it just seems there is a difference in their perspective on what’s important. I think that needs to be dealt with or we aren’t going to have a resolution of the conflict.

Henshaw (BBC): About the bombing?

Natsios: The bombing started again April 21 and appears to have taken place in the areas where the rebel commanders were meeting to try to unify. We are very troubled by this and we have issued public statements criticizing this. The efforts by rebels to reunify will reduce the number of movements and increase the likelihood that we can accelerate the political negotiations. It does appear that they have begun to take military action. I think there have been four attacks in Jebel Marra mountains. We are troubled by this because these have been stable areas before. And there have been other bombings, I think in West Darfur and North Darfur, of civilian targets, I might add.

Are there other questions?

Simon Apiko (Reuters): The U.S. is threatening a resolution on sanctions against Sudan in the Security Council. Is that still on the table? Are you satisfied that the government of Sudan is doing what it needs to do?

Natsios: That resolution is on hold and if we find that the Sudanese government is being cooperative and facilitating the process of getting these 23,000 troops to Sudan, then it will remain on hold. If they do not, they are not cooperative, and they find various mechanisms for slowing this down, then we will bring the resolution out. But at this point, it is on hold. This is publicly what Dr. Rice has said and she has indicated that it will remain that way until we find that the government has not been cooperative. If this can get resolved quickly, the troops can be brought in, we can move toward a resolution of the Darfur crisis. Then, as I said earlier, we can begin to normalize relations. But until that happens there is not going to be a normalization of relations.

Henshaw (BBC): Do you have any timetable for that, at what point will you re-table that UN resolution?

Natsios: There are a lot of very small decisions that have to be made by the international community, by the United States, by the Europeans, by donors, by the UN, by the AU, and by the Sudanese government too, to make this happen. They are decisions like the leasing of land, the building of boreholes for the troops, the construction of the facilities that the soldiers will stay in, the approval of various senior officers by the Sudanese government. There is sort of process of vetting that goes on. If these all can be facilitated, then we can make this happen quickly . On the other hand, if there is an effort to slow this down, and there has been in the past, then we will reconsider our position on this.

Apiko (Reuters): How is cooperation at this point?

Natsios: At this point the resolution hasn’t passed yet. The resolution I think is tabled this week by the British government and until it passes some of the critical decision-making processes cannot go into effect.

Mohamed Hasni (AFP): Will you be going to the Tripoli meeting:

Natsios: Yes.

Hasni (AFP): What is your assessment of this meeting? Is it a step forward in the process?

Natsios: It’s not going to start the real negotiations. That’s not the purpose. Let me first thank the Libyan government for hosting this conference. We believe that the regional players, the countries in the region, particularly Libya, Chad, Eritrea, Egypt, African countries, all have a role to play in stabilizing the situation in Darfur and participating under the direction and leadership of the United Nations and the AU. I emphasize that. Actions taken outside of that framework really will undermine the effort. So we can’t have a lot of activities that are not transparent and that are not done under the direction of the United Nations and the AU. This conference is being hosted by the Libyan government, but the chairs of the meeting are the AU and Salim Salim, my good friend, and Jan Eliasson, my good friend. And so, we think this is a model for how the neighbors can be involved in this process. What I personally hope will come out of this is to come to some common understanding as to what the process will be from here on, in terms of concrete operational steps to begin to get the rebels together and develop a common position on what issues need to be resolved in a protocol that would amend or annex to the DPA that was approved last year. That’s the framework we established November 16. We need to put some tangible details in that now, agree to a process with some benchmarks and some dates. I understand the Libyan government has invited, along with the UN and the AU, some of the rebel leaders to come, not to the meeting itself, but side meetings. We think that is a useful step in moving the process along.

Apiko (Reuters): [Inaudible] Given the proliferation of the rebel groups and the difficulty of getting them together, how difficult is it going to be to get this process going?

Natsios: The one good thing, and there are not a lot of favorable things happening, is the aid agencies – UN, OCHA, UNICEF, World Food Program, the ICRC, the NGOs – are stabilizing the humanitarian situation. People are in better health than they were prior to the conflict. That is one of the great successes that we forget. People are receiving services. Of course, it is enormously expensive. There are 13.000 relief workers, 12,000 Sudanese and 1,000 international staff. We do appreciate that and that is a success. We need to protect 2.5 million people’s lives. In terms of the effort to get the rebels organized, as I said earlier, this is a problem in every post-conflict situation. We had the benefit in Southern Sudan of one SPLM led by one very powerful figure -- John Garang. We did the negotiating with one team. As you know there was a war between the Dinkas and the Nuers in the South during the 1990s. When that ended and the political movement to represent the ethnic groups reunited that led to a unified South that could negotiate with a unified North. It was very important. I emphasize that to the rebel movements in Darfur. They need to think of that model. It is unlikely we’re going to see a reunification of all the rebels. There are too many ideological – some come from a secular standpoint, others come from an Islamist standpoint -- it is unlikely they are going to unify. However, what is very interesting is if you ask people what are the most important issues, they all say the same thing. So you don’t have a really different set of issues that must be negotiated by the different groups. I don’t think it is going to be very difficult to come up with a set of five or 10 issues that need to be dealt with when there is a commonality of positions between these groups.

Adil Faris (Al Jazeera TV): Can you give your interpretation of the hybrid forces? Is it going to be African forces, will there be combined African and UN leadership?

Natsios: What does it mean? What the hybrid is is a proposal made by Kofi Annan and it is the third phase of the peacekeeping force that was agreed to on November 16 by a group very similar to the Tripoli group that is meeting next week. It was the African countries -- the Arab League was there, the African Union co-sponsored it with the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Alpha Konare chaired the meeting. I represented the United States. The permanent five members of the Security Council were there. The European Union was there. It was a very comprehensive group of people. And the Sudanese government was there. And we agreed to this framework. What the framework says in terms of the hybrid is that there are three phases -- the light support package, the heavy support package, and then the third phase is a large increase in the number of troops. What the agreement was then, and remains now, is that there will be a force commander who will be African, and there will be a joint representative of both the United Nations and the AU who will be a civilian on top of this – Luther Agwe – who was the former commander-in-chief of the Nigerian military and a respected figure in peacekeeping operations in the United Nations. He has been appointed to that position last week. He is out in Darfur now or maybe just came back to Khartoum, but he’s in country doing his duties. So he is the commander of the AMIS force and he will also be the commander of the hybrid force when it transitions. At this point we’re not there, we have to get the resolution at the UN first. So it’s primarily African troops, but if there are not sufficient qualified African troops then we will go outside Africa to find soldiers who have peacekeeping operation experience and those troops will go to Darfur and make up this hybrid force. It will be paid for by the United Nations peacekeeping dues system. That system as you know is a required 26 percent for the U.S. to pay. We pay 26 percent of all peacekeeping operations anywhere in the world every year under these rules. Each country has a certain percentage they pay. So this is an established assessment system that has been in place for many years. It will fund this in a normal way and not try to get extra budget resources which is how the AMIS forces have been funded and has created at times some problems.

Thank you very much.